Remaining loyal to a country or a group of people can be difficult because the world changes and the past becomes blurred. Bastard of Istanbul and Perspolis both have characters who have to deal with the decision of remaining loyal as they deal with the past, as well as future, problems. In Bastard of Istanbul by Elif Safak and Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi, both authors believe that it is the right of the citizens to remain loyal to their people, however this loyalty ends up being naive. Through the physical actions of the characters, the ignorant decisions they make, and the perception of what loyalty means, both Safak and Satrapi present the importance of remaining loyal to one’s people.
In both passages from Bastard of Istanbul and Persepolis, the characters of Armanoush and Marjane are actively remaining loyal to their people. To begin, Armanoush, from Bastard of Istanbul, displays her loyalty to the Armenians by confronting Asya’s family and telling the story of her family during the Armenian Genocide. Although this is a big
…show more content…
To begin, during the Armenian Genocide, Armanoush’s family left their home, taking their past and their memories with them. More specifically, Armenians saw time as a “cycle in which the past incarnated in the present and the present birthed the future” (Shafak). Remembering and spreading the past to create the future is the way Armanoush and the Armenians perceive loyalty. In contrast, during the Islamic revolution, Marjane’s family stayed in their home and went to demonstrations to fight against the government. At the end of the passage, Marjane and her family decide to stay, for that is how they believe their loyalty towards their people is being served. This contrast between Armanoush and Marjane’s family display how different groups of people pay their respects or remain loyal to a culture or group of