Description, Controversy, and Catching up on Kabul

Sorry this is my first post - I'm still sick but I'm doing my best to write cohesive sentences. I make no promises. Anyway, I'm about a quarter of the way into the book, and I find myself sometimes enthralled, sometimes disgusted, and often mesmerized. Seierstad's descriptions are wonderfully vivid - I feel as though I am living in Sultan's house with his family, experiencing their culture firsthand. Often, however, I wonder how much of her description is accurate. Let me put this in perspective: She is a Western, Caucasian woman living in an Afghan home. She is not subject to the cruelties of Afghan culture against women, although she describes them. She is not going to be sold, bartered, or subject to marrying a man three times her age. She is a visitor, a third eye in a room, and somewhat of a fly on the wall. Therefore, how credible is she? Would it be more powerful to hear an Afghan woman's story firsthand, or to hear Sultan's story from his perspective? Since I doubt either will happen, we must settle for "Bookseller" (if it's settling at all). The most troubling thing that I've found so far is the description of women and how they are treated in Afghanistan. In a way, they are much like Sultan's books - beautiful and rich, yet thrown into a fire at the drop of a hat. They are entitled to no feelings or opinions; they are wall fixtures until summoned by their husbands. They turn to songs and poetry that no one hears, and perhaps, even included in "Bookseller," no one appreciates. When suicide is their favored alternative, it makes me wonder how they survive at all. Something that I found interesting is Seierstad's narration. Sometimes she is first-person, other times she is third. Why the switch? Also, she jumps tenses, from present to past, and back again. At first, it was distracting, now I find it interesting. But why does she do it?

Last thing: I've lived in the Middle East for stretches of time. I've seen the culture and the life there. Sometimes it is beautiful; don't let literature completely misguide you. Other times, it is a disgrace. Granted, I've never visited Afghanistan or Pakistan or any of the places Seierstad has, but in the realm of that side of the world from the American perspective, it is hard to judge or even understand what we really don't know. It is Afghan culture to objectify women, as it is to burn books. Therefore, can we really say what is right or wrong, just because we have been taught otherwise?

Description in TBOK

I found parts of description in the Bookseller of Kabul very effective. I especially liked the use of calling the women in the markey burkas. It really shows how women are another part of society, but not actuually "women". The specific descriptions of the market and the items being sold was also effective because it created a sense of what it was really like.

Bookseller -- Description

Sereistad's descriptions are not excessively ornate, and only contain enough detail to accurately describe what was happening. In this way, she is not openly executing the "pathos" section of the rhetorical triangle as much as we would think. Instead, she leaves us to interpret the events on our own.
Looking back on the controversy paragraphs, I think this was a very wise move on Sereistad's part -- not only does leaving the events bare amplify their power, but it increases Sereistad's credibility and her moral standing. Because Sereistad was dealing with such a tricky task -- writing about an entirely different culture -- she had to be careful not to insult, and not to criticize. However, Sereistad knew that her audience would likely be Western, and that her readers' eyes would pick up on the feminine injustices.
Instead of blatantly describing the events as cruel, which would be condemning the entire Afghan culture as savage and the Western culture as ideal and evolved, Sereistad uses a more journalistic approach in her descriptions -- making her plead for awareness much more subtle, which I found very effective.

Bookseller -- Controversy

Sorry, I just figured out how to actually post a blog -- so I know this "controversy" one looks out of place amidst all of the "description" blogs.
Oh well. That aside, after reading many of the blogs about the controversy of Sereistad's ethics in writing Bookseller of Kabul, I realized that many of you focused on the fact that the controversy stems from a major difference in culture. I agree that the controversy comes from the huge culture gap that separates our cultures. Though Sereistad may have exaggerated some aspects of her story in order to appeal to the emotions of her readers, I think that it is much more likely that she represented them in a realistic way, but included her Western-based insights. In an Afghan culture, the idea of what it is to be a woman is clearly much different than it is here -- what we see as subjugation and overall weakness is their idea of virtue and justness. Of course, this is generally speaking -- I'm sure there are some liberal-minded people in Kabul, or other Afghan countries, who disagree. However, I'm sure that Sereistad's interpretation of the events she witnessed was shocking, and even insulting, to her host family.

I think that the question is not whether Sereistad abused her host family's privacy or exagerrated their actions, but whether we are willing to accept the Afghan culture or would hope to reform it.

I think that's what made Sereistad's host angry -- he saw Sereistad's interpretation as a critique of his society, an attack on the entire Afghan culture.

on description

Seierstad doesn't add much description into her writing, but even so, she gets her point across. She will put more emphasis on topics that tie into her main idea of the treatment of the treatment of women. The fact that Seierstad generally strays from description does not keep her from paying attention to detail. Seierstad devotes many of her words to the detail of historical events that surround her story as well as the detail that causes the reader to understand her aversion towards the treatment of the women in her story. The bare quality exhibited by her writing makes the story much easier to read and retain, which is a goal for an author, especially for one trying to make a point, such as Seierstad. An author trying to prove such points wants their story to stick with the reader, not be lost in superfluous language. 

descriptions, or lack thereof

The Bookseller of Kabul discusses a very interesting topic, and i wish the author had used a bit more description throughout her observations of the turmoil Afghanistan was facing before she arrived, and during. While i understand that the author was not present throughout her back story on Sultan Kahn, i do not think that it's out of the question to put a bit more descriptive writing into scenes that should normally evoke an emotional response from the reader. whether describing the young brides response to the sudden news of her suitor or the horrible scene of Sultan coming across the destroyed bodies of the former president and his brother, i found myself feeling absolutely nothing. Books very often evoke emotional responses with me, and i think that the style of description throughout Bookseller does have a certain appeal towards the subject matter, but i do think at key points within the plot, more description could be used to at least make the actions resonate with the readers more.

description

Seierstad's description is simple yet powerful. She does not go on long, hyperbolic rants about grand details, rather brings to the front of the readers' minds the images of smaller things that seem to make the larger whole that much more meaningful. For example, on page 9, when she is describing the fire in the street, she describes everything but the fire, making the fire seem that much more important. Follow me here: she describes the children playing near the "flames that cast dancing shadows across their dirty faces", she describes how the adults "stole a glance at the fire and hastened by", she says that the fire was obviously "in the service of God". She doesn't try and tell the reader about the strength of the flames lapping at the objects used as impromptu firewood or describe how the fire looked visually. By describing the smaller aspects surrounding the fire, Seierstad gives the reader perhaps a more complete description than direct adjectives ever could. 

Original--Mother Nature's shenanigans are not to my liking

Okay, so part of our homework was to write an original blog entry and I really have no idea what to write about. I haven't read far enough into "bookseller" to write something on that and I'm too tired to go into an analysis of something we've read in class. In lieu of something intelligent, I'd rather just write about how confusing this weather is. This whole "not hot, not cold" thing that Mother Nature is rocking is not really to my liking. I'm not a fan of waking up in the morning and going outside to warm up the car just to realize that it's pretty balmy out. If I'm outside at 7:20 AM in my bunny slippers, there had better be a good reason for it. I never know what coat to wear, the heavy parka or the light fleece, and even with a fifty-fifty shot, I always get it wrong. I really wish nature would ask for my opinion...in which case it would be like this past sunday EVERY DAY. However, I guess the environment is just going to ignore me and go do its own thing. Fine, whatever, I'm over it, nature. Go ahead and play your loopy games, see what I care. I'll just be over here with my hand on the thermostat and a variety of coats on my arms.

description: Bookseller of Kabul

The author of The Bookseller of Kabul Asne Seierstad uses descriptions that are, in a way, simplistic. While the scenes she depicts might be filled with color and life, her own wording is not filled with any extra flare, passion, or expressive adjectives. Generally, Seierstad does not describe the senses for the reader, other than sight--for example, Seierstad writes: "The family's clothes are stored in big boxes, as none of the rooms has closets. Every day a lot of time is taken up searching. Standing or sitting among the boxes, the women of the family examine garments, shoes, a lopsided bag, a broken container, a ribbon, a pair of scissors, or a tablecloth." She does not describe what one would smell, hear, feel, etc. 

In the novel Seierstad utilizes very short and rather bland descriptions. Although there are occasions when she describes locations using her senses very well, Seierstad will also go many pages while offering very few and insignificant descriptions of characters and events. In addition, I feel Seierstad should write the novel using more of a first person perspective. I think it would be much better if she would include her opinions or perceptions when she describes various events, places or characters. Not only would this give the reader a better understanding of the novel. But also, although she attempts to remain neutral, I find her bias towards Sultan Khan apparent in many of her descriptions, especially when she uses hyperboles and understatements.

description in kabul

The description Seierstad uses in her book is not overbearing to the point where it creates an obstacle for the reader, rather it's a smaller amount of description, including just enough detail. Most of her sentences she uses in her descriptions are shorter and less of list descriptive images that would serve as unnecessary. What I did notice as I was reading, was that when a story involves a more engrossing and important image, Seierstad withholds from the exclusion of vivd imagery. For example, in explaining the two bodies that hung from the pole, she went into extensive detail. It's almost as if the reigning ideals that she is trying to express, are illustrated with far more detail. In connection to the larger picture of the text, the beginning chapter talks about the censoring control of the Taliban and their expedition on eliminating all literature and traces of Afghan history. On the contrary, Seierstad steers clear of hiding important details of certain images that would have an affect on the reader.

Description in Bookseller

As Seierstad immersed herself in the culture of an Afghan household, she was able to see through the eyes of the family members and recount their stories as if she were there. Strangely, she describes the scenes in first person as though she experienced the family's past herself and describes the characters with quick one or two word epithets to remember each character. Scenes include details of sounds and smells as though she is remembering them from a few weeks ago like the example on page 28 of the Hayatabad neighborhood. While the descriptions are vivid and very easy to immerse yourself in, they are usually brief and found sparingly throughout the stories of each family member. These small yet detailed accounts add a personal feel to this distant, unfamiliar world that many Westerners feel no attachment or understanding.

original

Having read about halfway into the book, I find it refreshing how Seierstad seems to have successfully removed any traces of her own personal voice or tone from the story and instead focuses on delineating the story of the Khan family. Even when describing events universally deemed appalling by the Western world, such as Saliqa's punishment for falling in love with an unsuitable man, Seierstad simply recounts the events as they transpired, free of the slightest hints at judgement or disdain for the atrocities she is retelling. When faced with something as cruel as the treatment of women in the Muslim world, I feel like it would be a lot easier to lash out passionately against their mistreatment than it would be to depict a tale brimming with these cruelties with the utmost neutrality, and thus I'm impressed by how Seierstad keeps her personal opinions out of her story [although writing & publishing a story like this in the first place could be said to be speaking out against the mistreatment of Muslim women].

description

Description is hugely manifest in Seierstad's novel, as the entire story itself is an in-depth portrayal of the Khan family. Seierstad offers both detailed descriptions of the family members itself from appearance and family history to thoughts and feelings in order to accurately illustrate each specific character and to provide an accurate description of the modern Muslim family. However, what differentiates Seierstad's use of description from other authors is that while others commonly use lengthy descriptions as opportunities to use colorful language and potent words to enhance a reader's view of an event or character, Seierstad employs simple succinct language in her depictions in lieu of long flowing descriptions. In my opinion, this tactic offers a more honest and believable description of the family and the events that befall them because not having to read around any lavish descriptive language makes the facts and the story line more accessible to the reader, and thus more believable.

Description in "The Bookseller of Kabul"

Seierstad uses a very choppy form of description throughout The Bookseller. When describing scenes, like the setting of Hayatabad during the time Sharifa is left there with her youngest daughter, Seierstad switches between soft, smooth flowing sentences and sharp, stinging ones. For example, Seierstad explains Sharifa's situation, as being the "forgotten" first wife, using a very calming melodic tone: "The first year following Sultan's second marriage, Sharifa lived together with him and the new wife" (Seierstad 25). However, juxtaposing this soft line is a stinging illustration: "In Sharifa's eyes, Sonya was not only stupid but lazy too" (25). Seierstad immediately flows from a passive description of Sharifa's life to an illustration of her negative thoughts about the new wife Sonya. Quick transitions like these fill Seierstad's descriptions in The Bookseller of Kabul, which make for an interesting read as well as for jarring moments throughout the novel, so far.

Bookseller of Kabul Description

I noticed in Seierstad's writing a different type of description, one which i think she uses effectively. Seierstad certainly does not write multiple lined sentences, full of colorful descriptions of the setting and emotions. I feel she is right in neglecting this style in her writing. It would be inappropriate to describe the emotions of others and other speculations in depth because it is not her story to tell; how could she possibly know? However, I feel that the descriptions she does use, and the extent to which she speculates about others, are appropriate. Seierstad uses concise sentences, with interesting yet brief descriptions. Because the story itself is about the relations between various characters, especially men and women, it is unnecessary to go deeply into what the setting looked, felt, sounded like, except when describing a violent setting. I think Seierstad effectively utilized minimal descriptiveness.

Bookseller of Kabul-Description

For me, while I'm reading, I notice the lack of any kind of lengthy description. Rather, I find that the book tends to be more a compilation of fact after fact, and that Seiersted says little more than when she absolutely needs to include. I think that though this may be a turn off for some readers, I find that it enhances her story because she has chosen to write it like an article--factually and devoid of emotions that interfere with the possible validity of the story. I think the fact that the story is like an article supplements the jouranlistic integrity of the novel.

Portrayal of Women in Bookseller

So far, I have seen a few uses of rhetoric by Seierstad that really had an effect on me as I was reading. The author uses anaphora to emphasize that Sonya is young and beautiful. It really stresses that this young innocent girl is being violated. She seems to use various types of rhetoric to get the point across that the women in the story are powerless, weak, and wronged by the male counterparts in the story, especially Sultan. The varied sentence structure and tone are examples of this. She says many powerful things with a nonchalant tone, that proves very effective. Many points are understated in this way. I think she's trying to convey that the actions, although brutal in our eyes, were normal in Afghanistan, part of everyday life. However, it is very strange how Seierstad blatantly praises Sultan for being a free-thinking brave soul, yet seems to say in covert way that the culture that he lives in is vulgar and unfair. In other words, Sultan's actions towards women come across as horrid, but as a person he is very noble. Maybe Seierstad is attempting to say that it is the Afghan culture that is corrupt and wrong; it is not the fault of the bookseller that he acts a certain way towards women. To virtually all men in Afghanistan, women were objects, useful for reproducing only. It appears Seierstad is criticizing the culture, not Sultan himself. She also stresses this point in her expression of the women's perspective. Seierstad takes a 3rd person omniscient point of view when dealing with the characters. Sonya and Sharifa, according to Seierstad, feel weak and helpless. I think the juxtaposition of the feelings of these women emphasize the Afghan women image. 

controversy

As for the question as to whether or not Seierstad has used the Rais family, I would absolutely agree that she has. Without a doubt she exploited the inner workings of their family and publicized thoughts and feelings that most families would strive to keep private. However, the ends for which she exploited this family may somewhat alleviate, if not justify, Seierstad's actions. In publishing a firsthand account of the treatment of Afghan women, Seierstad successfully depicted the torment and cruelty these women are subjected to but never have the opportunity to share with those outside their world. But as to whether expressing the plights of these women condones the exploitation of this family, I'm torn. On one hand, I would agree that Seierstad's actions benefit the greater good by bringing awareness to the harsh realities of feminine life in Afghanistan, but at the same time it just doesn't sit well with me that in order to do so, the trust and credence that the Rais family put in Seierstad during her stay with them had to be compromised with the publication of her book.

description

So every time I find my self sitting down about to write a blog I'm really never sure exactly what I'm supposed to be doing... oh well.

One thing that I noticed when I was reading "Bookseller" was that Seiersted uses a lot of descriptive lists more than anything. Especially in the beginning of the book when she is still trying to describe the setting and set the mood for the novel. Although our writers book warned us against the use of descriptive lists, I think that they are quite effective in this book. It's a quick way for the author to reach her initial purpose of giving her audience background information.

Opposite of euphemism...

I mused out loud in class yesterday, "I wonder what the opposite of euphemism would be. You know, if we politely and euphemistically say 'passed away" instead of 'died,' what would the substitution of a harsher or ruder saying be, such as 'took the big dirt nap'?" Well, after a little online research and some source checking, I came up with two possibilities:

1. The replacement of an inoffensive word by an offensive one is called dysphemism.
2. An intentionally harsh word or expression instead of a polite one may also be called a cacophemism ("speaking ugly words, cursing"), especially when the term is meant to express real anger rather than good-humored irony.

The best example I found for a cacophemism is: "Among the American military 's**t on a shingle' for 'creamed chipped beef on toast' may occasionally express real despair at the quality of the food and be meant to sound as a real cacophemism."

Mystery solved, I guess. But what about when one uses a term or phrase (i.e., "the big dirt nap") for humorous reasons? Since the "real anger" is missing, are we back to dysphemism? Stay tuned; I think additional research is warranted.

Mr. K

The Bookseller of Kabul

Seierstad successfully uses description to give background information, which contributes to the reader's understanding of the story. She provides an adequate amount of details, which don't distract the reader, but instead add to her argument and make it a more realistic description of the issues at the time. I haven't read as much of the book as I would've liked, but so far, her ideas are expressed very clearly and her descriptions only improve her story.

Description in The Bookseller of Kabul

I want to talk specifically about the use of description in the chapter "Temptations", from pages 122-130. Seierstad manages to capture the vast range of emotions in a 17 year old boy, Mansur. Mansur may be from Afghanistan, where the culture and practices are different from Western countries, but the description of his emotions and feelings are true for any adolescent boy. Seierstad's description creates a dominant impression, or mood, of teenage rebellion manifested in love, disgust, and frustration. Seierstad's vantage point is that of an outside observer who makes her own judgements about what she sees, and then records them. 

Even though it is against the law, Mansur throws his love at a young, pretty stranger who he hopes to seduce  sexually. Furthermore, Seierstad describes Mansur's disgust and internal conflict at the prospect of paying a pre-adolescent beggar to have sex with him. Finally, Mansur expresses his annoyance and anger at his father for removing him from his friends and his school to "chain" him to the bookshop.

In eight pages, the sexual urges and family conflict of any rebellious teenage boy are described in vivid detail, with Mansur serving as the model for the description.

Description in Seierstad's Novel

From what I have read up to this point, description is used to inform the reader about the necessary history that surrounds the events in the novel. Although Seierstad could probably go on for the length of her book and more just describing the modern history of Afghanistan, she includes just enough history to help the reader understand and progress in her story. I do not think that Seierstad included an overabundance of detail, but rather just the right amount. Her description of the events and people in the novel are clearly centered on helping one of her purposes, which is to inform the reader about what she has experienced in Afghan society by focusing on one particularly interesting and unique family. Therefore, the description I have read has served this purpose by informing about the necessary background of Afghan history that had been occurring around the time her novel takes place. These details about the history are tremendously necessary in order to understand anything about modern Afghan society. In addition, by her use of description, Seierstad is trying to disallow the reader from being ignorant, but rather informed and educated. According to Seierstad the Taliban was extremely ignorant, for the people of the Taliban chose to be ignorant in their rejection of the knowledge of Afghan culture, modernization, and progress. In contrast, Seierstad wants her audience to be far from this ignorance that she, and Mohammad, rejected in the Taliban.

Description With an Agenda

In reading the foreword to The Bookseller of Kabul, I noticed something very telling about the author in terms of her use of description. On the one hand, Seierstad manages to use her journalism skills well and describe through an objective lens. Her simplistic descriptive style is not at all lofty like in the way some writers are. She is removed from her surroundings, but her descriptions are very exact sufficient enough that the reader will fully understand the environment and the situation (page ix, "I was carrying seven books." page xi "On a foggy day in February"). Her voice is very matter of fact. "This is what happened. This is how it was." Little is left to the imagine because her voice is so passive; however, once she gets talking about the gender differences in Afghan culture and the male superiority, her voice becomes stronger. She becomes a writer with an agenda, and her description changes because of that. It is still slightly objective, but also very suggestive. On the bottom of page xiv, her description of life in a berka is told in a very different voice than when she was describing that foggy day in February. "...what if feels like to squash into the chockablock back rows... when the rest of the bus is half empty... what it feels like to squeeze into the trunk of a taxi because a man is occupying the backseat..." These descriptions are far longer than previous descriptions that were seldom longer than two or three words. She becomes increasingly subjective when she talks about her argument, and that subjectivity is reflected in her descritption.

Thoughts on the Bookseller of Kabul

While this post is supposed to be about Seierstad's novel and my reaction to it, I thought I'd start off with a connection between our reading and the world at large. Although this controversy is about the clash of two cultures and how such a sitaution should be handled, it should remind the reader that the question of Seierstad's "objective" journalism is one that plagues not just memoirs and documentaries, but also the forms of media we see everyday (newspapers, magazines, etc). So when I evaluate Seierstad's situation, I ask the general question of how much of reporting should be plain and simple fact, and how much should be opinion? In this case, I believe that the answer should lean more to the objective side. Seierstad is certainly entitled to her own opinions, but the blatant incorporation of her opinion into her writings actually reduces the impact she is trying to make. Her portrayal of Sultan Khan definetly gets her views on women's treatment in Afghanistan across. However, in order to do this, she feels that she has to take so many liberties with her writing, even going so far as to assume the family members' past and their most intimate thoughts. So when she tries to sell these opinions as fact, the effect of her writing falls short of her intentions. The details that she believes to strengthen her point only make it harder for her audience to accept what she says as the whole truth, since they will wonder how she could possibly know this much about this family with the few interviews she had. Not only does her point lose its impact, but it threatens the reputation of her informants, who were gracious enough to let them in on thier lives. If she claims to know so much about Afghan culture, then she should know by now how much a family's reputation means in Afghanistan. The fact that she was able to portray Sultan Khan in such a way harms his reputation. This is not helped by the fact that she did not take enough precautions when hiding his identity. Overall, she fails in being a successful journalist in two ways: 1) she isn't able to make an effective point becuase of her incorporation of opinion and the major liberties she takes and 2) she doesn't take into consideration enough the impact her writing will have on her host family.

Bookseller of Kabul Controversy

This controversy comes from, and therefore must be resolved with, the conflicting views of two separate societies. Seierstad hails from a society of openness, where (in principle) men and women, black and white, religious and secular, can all coexist and thrive together. Of course her views on the culture shock she received from Afghanistan oppose Shah Mohammad's because he lives in that society; the way in which women are treated (and how he himself treats women) are normal to him. Of course, hailing from an area of the world where the press is given unbelievable access to people's lives, both public and private, Seierstad's account of the bookseller's life feels too intrusive to Mohammad and others who live in a country that, up until a few years ago, operated under the oppressive rule of the Taliban. There is no real answer to this question because there is no way to say who is right: should the story of a family's life be used to inform the world on the society in which they live, or should the intimate details that make the story so unique be silenced because they compromise the already minimal veil covering the family's identity? At the end of the day, it is not for one society to answer, for there will never be one clear cut answer. It now falls on the courts to decide whom to protect: the writer or the subject. 

Bookseller of Kabul Controversy

It is naïve to think that Seierstad’s novel would be completely unbiased. She was raised with the belief that the men and women were equal. Consequently, the fact that she portrayed Sultan Khan harshly should not be surprising, considering the culture he comes from. Of course, Seierstad is not going to believe he is a nice guy, because he treats women unequally. As to whether it is fair to portray him harshly, I believe it is. It is her opinion of him, and she has a right to voice her opinions. In addition, she did not write the novel for the sole purpose of making money. She wrote the novel because she wanted to expose the hypocrisy of the way the Islamic culture treats women. She is trying to make a difference for many woman. Also, Seierstad did not violate the family’s privacy, because they allowed her to stay in their home. Because they allowed her to stay in their home, they cannot get upset if she writes something they do not approve of. I also wonder if Seierstad’s novel has really affected Sultan Khan. I do not think the novel has been published in Afghanistan, so I doubt anyone the Sultan knows has actually read the book.

Bookseller of Kabul Controversey

The controversy surrounding Seierstad's The Book Seller of Kabul focuses on the exploitation of a man's family because the literary interpretation is much too similar to the actual family. However, if the introduction really was written in 2002 and is in fact how the story came to be, then Seierstad is at fault for describing the man too similarly to the actually person allowing him to be recognized. At first, she simply seemed to want to write a book about this family because she found them interesting, yet the purpose of the book seems to shift to an exploitative piece describing the oppression of Afghan women. Seierstad does not describe this purpose to the bookseller, and therefore used the family to educate the world about the situation surrounding the women in that part of the world. Morally, it does not seem right to vividly portray this family while placing them in an unfavorable light because they obviously will respond. However, while I do feel what Seierstad was wrong, I do appreciate this venue to educate the masses about the situation of women in the Middle East.

Seierstad's Lens on life in the Middle East

First of all, let me begin by saying that Seierstad takes far too many liberties in her portrayal of Sultan's family and of life in the Middle East in general. Romanticizing Sutlan's experiences during the earlier years of his life as a bookseller only proceeds to create a novel view of his experiences and disillusions the readers into a false sense of wonderment over his heroism. Yes, Sultan was a brave man trying to defy the various regimes in control of Afghanistan, but he was an idealist, and it is improbable that in this day and age an idealist would survive that long in such a hostile environment. This clearly indicates Seierstad's fabrication of his life story, utilizing pieces of the lives of many individuals to create one "hybrid" hero to follow throughout the novel. If this wasnt bad enough, Seierstad proceeds to switch lenses just as quickly and turn a feminist eye towards Sultan's family, portraying him now as the villain in this intricate story of relationships in a changing world. To truly document the lives of a people, one must report all, the good, the bad, and the mundane, which Seierstad seems incapable of doing. Therefore, this is not a documentary, but rather a work of fiction, compiling the real events and happenings in numerous peoples lives and giving them to a few select individuals, thereby trying to "sell" their lives to a western audience.

kabul controversy

From the few articles i have read concerning the controversy over The Bookseller of Kabul, i have found almost no negative critique of the book itself by anyone other than Rais, the actual bookseller. At least when there has been controversy over other questionable memoirs or non fiction accounts, the press would often take the offensive, challenging the writers accuracy in hopes of escalating the argument. While Seirstad certainly used the family to get an accurate account of daily life in Afghanistan as well as possibly exaggerating the details for a more exciting or provocative book, i do not think she should be considered a villain or someone who has taken advantage of the family, the members of the family were warned in advance to the extent she would be discussing their lives and were allowed to tell Seirstad not to include certain stories. The family should not be pitied, especially Shah Rais, who has capitalized on his so-called defamation with a lawsuit and his own book There Once was a Bookseller in Kabul. While the problems caused by the release of the book in english and its availability throughout Rais' hometown are undeniable, many of the articles also made mention of Rais' popularity throughout the area, and of the fact that it was because of how well known he was before the book was released, that people were able to identify his thinly disguised character in the book. So while steps could have been taken by the author to veil the identities of the family more carefully, the family did allow this western, female reporter to live in their home for months, and even if she had not been writing a book on them, some risk must have been involved in that task alone, so the family cannot be considered completely without fault in this matter. The family should at least recognize the impact the book about their lives is having on the world, and how it is giving much more exposure to the continued hardships of the women in Afghanistan. I do think that if this book could help the major problems of women in that area even slightly, then the backlash from the families community should not take precedent over the abuse of thousands. While i understand how the book would be considered controversial with the subject matter it contains that seems to always spark a debate, i think that documentaries should know no bounds if they state a clear purpose for discovering and sharing the truth with the world. While The Bookseller of Kabul is by no means a piece of hard hitting journalistic evidence to shed light on the plight of women in Afghanistan, it does serve an excellent purpose in at least delivering a compelling first look at the terrible injustices in that region of the world to hundreds of thousands of people all over who would never have been given the chance to educate themselves in this area further otherwise.

The Bookseller of Kabul (controversy)

(1) In response to the question of whether or not Åsne Seierstad, yes she has. This was always her intent, for better or for worse. She is a reporter and an author, and therefore does what is necessary to successfully procure a story. The fact that she did use the family should not take away from the fact that they knew her intentions while living with them. The bookseller, of all people, should know the motives of reporters, and how single faceted their writing can be. While the book did shine a negative light upon him, it is mainly his own fault that the controversy has arisen. He allowed her an insight into the life of his household, and therefore the ability to use her findings, as she pleased, having not made official and/or legal boundaries for her writing. (2)Was it right for Seierstad to use this family for the benefit of others? Is it right for one person to got through hardship for the good of others? That is an answer depending to whom you speak. In this instance, it was rather useless simply for the fact that, as Seierstad tells us throughout the book, the family she depicts is not the typical Afghan family. If it were, then yes, the book could have done good for a people overall (assuming the impact of the became so far reaching), but because this family was not a general finding in Afghanistan, the book cannot be given such a justification. (2/3)Seierstad tells us that the reason she chose this family to become a part of was because they were so intriguingly different, and this is where we, as readers, should become wary. The fact that her decision was based on her own whim and intrigue is warning as to the slant of the writing in the story. The story was written to make money. This story is exactly what she wants it to be. 

Bookseller of Kabul Controversy

In Anne Seierstad's attempt to illustrate the evocative images and stories she witnessed and experienced during her five month stay with a family in Afghanistan, she has been criticized by being addressed that her book has violated the personal privacy of her host family. I disagree for the belief that she in no way should have surprised the bookseller with her novel. Upon her stay, the host family was informed that she, a journalist, intended on writing a book about her experiences. As a journalist she took the opportunity of relaying the information about her host family publicly through her book. 'The Bookseller of Kabul' was written to effectively depict the harsh treatment of women in Afghanistan. and by doing so Seierstad needed to take advantage of all opportunities given to her. Though her true intentions were not to embarrass the family what so ever, the reactions of the bookseller are somewhat understandable, especially in the aspect that the identity of the bookseller and his family was revealed. And although I am not that far into the book, I'm certain that the methods Seierstad used to write this book will be efficacious in relaying the vivid expositions of the treatment of Afghan women.

Description in "Bookseller"

I'm only about fifteen pages into "The Bookseller of Kabul," but I already love the author's simple style of writing. Before starting the book, I was expecting to be bombarded with all-too-descriptive adjectives and adverbs meant to enchant the reader to Afghanistan's "exotic" culture. I am so happy that the author decided to focus on conveying descriptions that are simple so the reader can take an active role in reading and develop a stronger interest in the issues addressed indirectly in "Bookseller." My favorite two sentences so far, both in Chapter 1, are "Sonya looked down at the floor" (5) and "Sharifa cried for twenty days" (7). Seierstad could not have written sentences more stripped of literary description, but with these sentences she creates impressions more lasting and profound than if she had devoted a full page to either topic. There is always something beautiful about simplicity, and especially when one wishes to encourage active thinking in readers, there's often no better road to take.

Controversy In Bookseller of Kabul

1- Did Seierstad "use" the Khan family? Yes. The reason for her trip to Afghanistan was to explore and uncover the facets of life, especially for women, in Afghanistan so that her readers could have a better understanding of life in Afghanistan. That was made clear in the introduction to the book. Seierstad discovered Sultan Khan. She admired for his courage as a bookseller in Kabul. This original attraction brought Seierstad to the Khan home, where she behaved as a spy on Afghan culture and life, extracting bits and pieces from everyone that she encountered. All these pieces of information came together like a puzzle, and presented a picture of how Seierstad saw life in Afghanistan, especially for women, during her visit. Seierstad absolutely used the family, taking advantage of her position as a foreigner to view both sides of life, literally from the segregated rooms of men and women. Only Seierstad could be with women and men without opposition from the Khan family or the Afghani culture. Furthermore, even though Seierstad asked the family what she could and could not record, the family could not anticipate how the final product would appear. In particular, Sultan Khan was enraged that the book portrayed him in such a negative light and that the book hurt his reputation. Sultan Khan certainly felt used by Seierstad as the cruel, oppressive antagonist.

2- Does a family represent an entire people? No. If two people see an event, both will have a different perception and description of the event. Likewise, Seierstad entered Afganistan, viewed life, and wrote her book- the way she saw things. Just based on discrepancies in accounts from person to person, the description of one family would vary considerably. So there is no way that a family can represent a people and a culture. Furthermore, Seierstad frames her story as a documentary, or a true account, of what she witnessed. However, Seierstad also wants to sell books and make money, so she includes only those stories/vignettes that captivate the reader and elicit pathos from the Western reader who wants to learn more about Afghani culture. Usually, these stories are negative, descriptions that portray the  side of life in Afghanistan that would be deemed unfavorable by a Western reader. As a result of Seierstad's selectiveness of what she writes, it is impossible to represent the entire Afghani culture and people.

Bookseller Of Kabul

I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to be posting, but I'm giving it a shot. I just started started the bookseller of Kabul and have been surprised and somewhat disturbed by some of the scenes and descriptions that the book contains. I was trying to think about something to write about that wouldn't spoil the book for those who haven't started it yet so I settled on the language and the way that Seierstad writes the book which we started discussing in class. Before I knew that Seierstad was a reporter I was a little bit surprised about the the lack of description in the text. Though Seierstad will occasionally set up a scene most parts that I've read seem to jump from event to event without really going in depth into these events. She provides the important information, all the basics but doesn't include much supplementary description. At first this disappointed me. However, after learning a little bit more about Seierstad and about the circumstances of the book I think I understand some of the reasons why she writes like this, and I'm overall more impressed with the book. First of all, her style makes sense because she's a reporter so she must be used to talking about the important points of a story without elaboration or decoration. Secondly after I thought about her circumstances, I though about how hard it would be to describe a scene in intricate detail that you haven't experienced for yourself yet is supposed to be truthful. Thirdly, there was probably a pretty significant language barrier between Seierstad and the family, so she might not have wanted to venture past the basics of their story for fear of misunderstanding them or crossing the line between memoir and fiction.

Bookseller of Kabul Controversy

I don't think that Seierstad was wrong for portraying the bookseller and his family the way she did. I think that Rais should have come up with some sort of formal documentation about the restrictions of the novel (like whether or not she should have the ability to print pictures in the book). While it it understandable that Rais be upset that his identity was not concealed well enough, it was idiotic of him to think that he and his family would not be subjected to harsh scrutiny when they welcomed an American author into their home for a five month duration. Rais should have considered the fact that he may be exposed as a result of the book. Seiersted was merely trying to write a book that describes the lack of freedom of the Afghan woman as accurately as possible. It is Rais that needed to ask himself the question that the first article addresses: if one family (his) can be sacrificed for the better of a nation. Seiersted was doing her job, she is not responsible for the naive nature of the bookseller. 

The Bookseller of Kabul Controversy

I don't believe that Seierstad "used" the family, but I feel that she was really irresponsible and not mindful when writing this book. Although names were changed, there are some very specific descriptions of family members in this book. In regards to using one families problems to describe the problems of a people as a whole, I think Seierstad does this in a mediocre manner. She does a fairly good job of describing women in the culture and their issues and succeeds on giving background on Pakastain and Afghani culture but I feel doesn't explore the issues of other families. Khan's family is pretty wealthy and we receive insight into his life, but we don't get much information on people of other social stati. Lastly, the limit between documentary and fiction is a very simple one. If most of the accounts are true, than consider it documentary. At the same time, the safety of the people involved has to be taken into consideration. If a novel is peppered with many interesting but false accounts, than it is smply fiction.

Bookseller of Kabul Controversy

The only aspect the controversy in which I feel the bookseller's family has been wronged is in Seierstad's revealing of the family's identity through pictures and descriptions of them. One of the responsibilities of a journalist is to make sure the subject of his or her story will not be harmed as a result of the piece. Though Seierstad made an attempt to protect them by concealing their names, she nevertheless put the family in danger. With respect to the bookseller's discontent with the way his family was depicted, I feel that, frankly, that's too bad. Seierstad asked permission to use what she observed to write a novel, she did not ask, "may I stay here and write a book about all the lovely, positive facets of you and your family?" Without asking Seierstad what light she was planning on depicting his family in, the bookseller gave Seierstad the permission to depict what she saw. Seierstad is at fault, however, if her depictions put the family in danger. For the most part, journalism rarely pleases everyone and the only way this could be considered a true controversy is if Seierstad did not publish this book as a novel, but rather as pure non-fiction. Though she may not have utilized the best journalism skills, especially in publishing a novel in which she states everything is true, she has the right to speculate and embellish certain aspects of her novel. My advice to the bookseller and to anyone else in his position, be sure you know all the facts before letting a journalist in your home.

The Controversy of the "Near-Sighted"

Foreword: I am not an expert on Muslim culture, nor do I attempt to be one in the following response. I just try to use the knowledge that I have to make some conclusions.

Asne Seierstad sought out to publish a novel on Afghan life. However, she ended up creating a weapon capable of death. Seierstad published The Bookseller of Kabul as a portrayal of her temporarily adopted family in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban. However, before publishing the book, Seierstad failed to anticipate the obvious response from the family: dismay and shock. As a citizen of the world, I recognize that the Muslim culture of Afghanistan is completely different from our Western world. Therefore, when considering if Seierstad is guilty of defaming Shah Mohammed and his family, I must consider how Afghanistan's Muslim culture functions. To my knowledge, Afghan culture is based off a strict patriarchal society that considers women as inferior to men. Also, I know that Afghan culture centers itself around the idea of reputation, pride and honor. Like many East-Asians, Afghanis strive for their family to be looked upon favorably in the context of society. Without honor, a society could either isolate a family or even ban them from their community. With this knowledge, I must assert that Seierstad is definitely guilty of defaming Shah Mohammed and putting his family in danger. Through publishing controversial accounts of a real family without making a substantial effort to disguise their identity, Seierstad leaves Shah Mohammed's family open to criticism, betrayal and possible harm. In a conservative society, like Afghanistan's, controversial actions are not looked upon in a favorable manner, and are often met with punishment. Seierstad egregiously ignored this fact and ultimately ruined the reputation of Shah Mohammed and his family forever.

The Bookseller of Kabul Chapter 1

Seierstad's writing style if her only objectives are to inform and persuade. By the end of the first chapter, I am much more knowledgeable about Afghanistan and she has convinced me that the women there are horribly mistreated. However, she does not succeed in hooking me in and making me want to know more. Because of her journalistic tone, the beginning of the book is lacking the feelings and emotions that help the readers get to know the characters. It would have been interesting for her to begin by showing Sultan's motivations for getting a second wife. Was he being selfish? Was he feeling insecure? I know that these questions will probably be answered later on but I wish she'd have given us a little more information in order to better lure us in.

Bookseller of Kabul Controversy

Åsne Seierstad's mission was to create a vivid and frank picture of the oppression of women in Afghani society. In order to compose the most honest description, Seierstad asked to write the book based on the experiences of a particular family. Seierstad's intentions were clear from the very beginning, and thus Shah Mohammed Rais can blame no one but himself for the creation of the story. He merely dislikes the way in which he is described, and thus is lashing out at the author. Seierstad's description of the bookseller is fair--she portrays both sides of his personality. On one hand, the bookseller is a hero who was courageous enough to go to jail in order to protect free speech and sell books; on the other, an oppressive husband who has structured his family in the traditional Afghani way. Seierstad depicts the bookseller as both liberal and traditional, which I assume is a balanced representation. Shah Mohammed Rais is being a hypocrite for suing Seierstad--he promotes freedom of speech while illicitly selling books, yet he tries to take away Seierstad's right to this basic freedom.

Original Post: Baldwin's Diagnosis of Rage

The essay that intrigued me the most of the few we have read so far was James Baldwin's Notes on a Native Son. The essay deals with the common concept of oppression but develops to explore the relationships between white Americans and black Americans and arrive at unique conclusions. Baldwin reveals the atrocities of these racial conflicts but maintains that whites and blacks do not completely hate eachother. Hate, he explains, is exhausting and burdensome on the heart and mind. I found his point that it is this oscillation between love and hate that spurs rage in the hearts of the oppressors and the oppressed incredibly interesting. He successfully explains his point with the comparison to gangrene and amputation. Amputation signifies the hatred and complete removal of the 'enemy' from one's thoughts while gangrene is the painful gray area between hatred and love. Baldwin's beautiful description of this internal battle that all humans, whether racially oppressed or not, face puts a diagnosis on the cause of rage. The violence, oppression, and other ugliness in the world are caused not by hate, but by that gangrenish feeling we have towards others.

Bookseller of Kabul

I think that in many ways, both sides of this controversy make valid arguments. On the one hand, Seierstad made it clear to the family that her purpose there was to document their life, and therefore I do not think she can be held at fault. At the same time, it is understandable the father's anger over his life being exposed in a way that he does not agree with or perhaps understand. I think the discrepancy does not  stem from a miscommunication between the two, but rather from the disparity that naturally exists between both of their cultures. I think that I, and most other observers from western cultures, certainly would have had similar responses to the atrocious abuse that Afghan wives suffer at the hands of their husbands. However, being that such occurrences are relatively commonplace (as corroborated by women who read Seierstad's book) I can see why the father would be outraged by her reaction, and deem it disrespectful to his culture. I think that here, the blame belongs to the difference in society, not the people caught up by the culture clash. 

Original Post?

As was said before, I'm not sure if we are supposed to do an original posting or if we are just supposed to post our reactions to the criticism on Bookseller, but I'll write an original post anyway just in case.

I absolutely abhor the blogosphere. Not because I don't like people sharing their thoughts and not because I am against the concept of the blog, but because the world of blogging will ultimately keep me out of a job. I want to get into the journalism business. The only problem is that journalism is dying as a result of blogging. More and more people are just blogging about news and getting their news from online blogs and newspapers are dying one by one. Our own blog is fine, because we're blogging about interesting books and speeches. But the countless blogs about world politics and events are going to be the end of me, I'm sure of it.

Posting

Hey, all. In order to post you need to sign in (make sure you have a google account) and then the button for new post will come up.
Mrs. L.

Controversy over Bookseller

Seierstad stated herself that she might have crossed the line when it came to her honesty about the family in her novel. However, I tend to disagree, for I believe she did not cross the line at all. Because I have not read the book, I may change my mind if I see blatant violations of personal privacy or situations that may endanger the family, but with the knowledge I currently I have, I cannot say Seierstad did anything wrong. She asked the family to stay in their house with the known intention of writing a book. They even explicitly told her specific situations that she could not include in the book. Just because Rias disapproved of the final product, doesn't mean that the author of this novel did anything ethically wrong. She changed their names and created a novel, a fictional story. Although based on true events and real people, Seierstad cannot be blamed for any violation of the family's rights. Even though it is obvious who the novel refers to, I feel Seierstad cannot be held accountable. She is telling a very powerful story of the treatment of women in Afghanistan, a story that deserves to be heard. The story should not be changed in any way as to inaccurately portray the reality of the situation for fear of a family's personal discomfort that they themselves allowed. 

Bookseller Of Kabul

I think that Seierstad's actions could be interpreted in many different ways. While I understand why some people might feel like Seierstad used Shah and his family, I think that Seiestad wrote the book because she was inspired by the way that Afghan women were treated, not because she was trying to cash in on the family's story. While she could have been more discrete about Shah's identity, the realistic style of the book is one of the reasons that it is so interesting to me. Furthermore, I don't think that Seierstad anticipated the success of the memoir, so she may have thought that the book wouldn't have had as much of an impact on the reputation of Shah and his family as it did. I'm also impressed by the fact that she gave some of the proceeds from the book to benefit women. Finally, I think that its important to be aware of the lifestyles of people in different countries so while the book may embarrass one family I think its ultimately more important that the hundreds of thousands of people who have read it can now relate to the lives of Afghan women. Not many people are completely aware of the way that women are treated in the middle east because of the freedom that we're used to enjoying ourselves. This memoir puts the lifestyle of Afghan women in perspective for me and I think that thats a great thing because it can never hurt to understand others a little bit better. 

Bookseller of Kabul

Although the reasons behind Seierstad's message were to raise a level of awareness, rather than to purposely humiliate her host family, one cannot help think that she was not oblivious to the fact that her book would offend them. She abused the hospitality of those to whom she owes her success. She was extremely selfish and rude, which is not entirely her fault, considering how writers sometimes have to exaggerate or take advantage of others to reach their goals. This controversy reminded me of an episode of Gossip Girl, in which one of its main characters had to sacrifice his friendship with another because, in an effort to write a good article, he betrayed the trust of his friend. Similarly, Seierstad wanted to send a strong message across, and didn't care that, by doing so, she would lose the friendship and trust of her subjects. Its is clear that, in writing her novel, she adopted the Machiavellian point of view that "the ends justify the means".

The Controversy over The Bookseller of Kabul

I believe that Seierstad's story is one that is important to tell, especially with the amount of conflict in Afghanistan and the general level of ignorance about it. However, Seierstad's mistake may have been in her assuming her hosts' thoughts and promoting them as true. Even though she may have recounted what she witnessed accurately, she admits that she can only guess what her hosts are thinking since she can only base their characters off of what they choose to disclose. In this way, I think that Shah Mohammad is justified in feeling that he was portrayed in an unfair manner, especially since he was not given a chance to read the manuscript before it was published. While the rights of women are certainly a major concern, the author's advocacy of such rights should not be achieved at the expense of the family, especially if such an association could become dangerous.

Individual Blog....

I'm pretty sure that we were supposed to post our own, unique blog too. If not, I apologize greatly for ruining everyone's wonderful flow over the controversy of "Booksellers". If so, well then I'm sorry you guys are going to have to read my thoughts anyway...

So overall one thing that I think we were debating in class over the Baldwin and Bourgess stories was the essential feeling of the "coming of age" in both of the essays. In one, a man has overcome his blindness and made his lifestyle adapt to what was once his downfall. In the other, there is a man still attempting to overcome the racial prejudice he faced and the death of his basically estranged father. For me, I sort of had the feeling of "ignorance is bliss" when reading both of these stories. But then again what is more prevalent is that both this stories in the end seem to defy this saying. In Blindness, I felt as though many people assume that seeing is believing, when in reality there is this man who cannot see and never will see again yet he is more sure of life than I, a perfectly capable "seer", am. In the other story, it seems as though the narrator's life took a turn for the wrost once he realized the hatred in the world. Yet, he realizes that one just must learn to cope and fight for what they believe in. And wouldn't that mean that you would be in a better place with your problems solved than where you were without addressing (or knowing) your problems at all? I feel like this may also tie into "Booksellers" as well. Although many people may harrass Seierstad for her brutally accurate depiction of the life of the family she lived with when reporting the war, her book tells the struggle of Afgani women, and serves as a type of advocate for them. Now, isn't that better than never addressing the issue at all?

Bookseller Reactions

While I think that the father of the family that Seierstad stayed at has a right to be upset with his private life being available to the public, I believe that he did have fair warning and therefore has no right to press charges. Then again, I believe that we cannot ultimately draw the conclusion of whether or not Seierstad was being ethical in the details of her writing until we read the book for ourselves. Although the line between what is ethical and what is not is sometimes hard to give a definition, one can sense when something or someone oversteps his or her boundaries. Therefore, in order to judge is this controversy is actually deemable as a controversy, we all need to read the book for ourselves.

The Controversy Over Kabul

There has been a lot of controversy over the issue of honesty in the portrayal of Mohammed in "The Bookseller of Kabul," however, I think the only person who has truly been honest in the whole ordeal is Seierstad, the author. She said very matter-of-factly that she wasn't surprised that Mohammed was upset because she thought he was expecting "a biography of a hero." Mohammed claimed that he was misrepresented in the book. I think that the only reason he thinks there was misrepresentation is because he miht not have been shone in the best light. As a journalist, it was Seierstad's job to report on everything she saw. If she saw an imperfect human in Mohammed, then it was her right and duty to write that. Of course, I will not be able to truly side with either Mohammed or Seierstad until I finish reading "Bookseller."

The Bookseller of Kabul Controversy

I think that historical observation should be allowed and encouraged. However, it is essential that the observer respects the customs of the culture he or she is visiting. I feel that Seierstad is entitled to criticize. I do not think she should have published it as non-fiction without having collaborated with Shah Mohammed though. While it is easy to say that the historical observation is too vital to compromise, how would you feel if someone wrote "A Day in the Life of a Teen" featuring you and refused to show you before it was mass produced, advertised and sold?