Question 1: Identify some of the forms intolerance can take, and discuss how

its effects on both the victims and the intolerant are presented in at least two
of the works you have studied.

Both Marjane Satrapi, author of Persepolis (Volume 1) and Arthur Miller, playwright
of A View From the Bridge, present different forms of intolerance and their effects on
both the victims and the intolerant in their works. In Persepolis, a graphic memoir
that was first published in serial form in France in 2000, Satrapi employs an
artistically canny licence in detailing her growing up in a Marxist, secular and
progressive household. She illustrates her maturation from childhood to adulthood
which coincided with the pivotal overthrow of Shah Reza Pahlavi, the 1979 Iranian
Revolution, and the eight-year Iran-Iraq War. In Persepolis, Satrapi aims to dispel
any misconceptions readers, particularly Western readers, may have about Iran and
Iranians associated with ‘fundamentalism, fanaticism and terrorism’ (preface).
Meanwhile, A View From the Bridge, a play written and published in 1955 during the
Cold War, interweaves Miller’s own observations and first-hand interactions with
longshoremen working along the Brooklyn Docks in Red Hook, New York, giving the
audience an insight into the rampant Italian immigration to Brooklyn in pursuit of the
American Dream during the 1950s. Through A View From the Bridge Miller aims to
explore an individual’s relationship with his or her community, highlighting the
capacity of an ordinary man to be subjected to a tragic downfall. While in both works
there are forms of intolerance that stem from the time period of conformity and
patriarchal societies in which both works are set, in Persepolis they are more directly
related to the external conflict of war, whereas in A View From the Bridge, they are
amplified by the dichotomy between two different cultural schools of thought;
specifically, Sicilian American codes of justice versus American law. Although both
texts are different genres, both Satrapi and Miller present forms of intolerance with
regard to the restricted role of women in society, the threat of power, and injustice.

In Persepolis, Satrapi highlights the restriction of females caused by the external

oppression of the Islamic regime. Despite the fact that Marjane and her mother, Taji,
are considered victims of the regime’s intolerance, they effectively are portrayed as
intolerant as they reject the stereotypical roles of females imposed on them. In ‘The
Veil’, Taji actively protests and takes part in the political demonstration despite the
dangers associated with it, showing how females, too, can break free from rather
passive roles and actively protest. Inspired by Taji’s feminist political perspective,
Marjane aspires (unrealistically) to take on traditionally male roles such as becoming
a prophet and a scientist. In ‘The Trip’, Marjane states how she ‘wanted to be an
educated, liberal woman’ like Marie Curie, despite the Islamic regime’s ban on
tertiary education for women. Marjane’s aspiration to be educated, despite the
Islamic regime forbidding it, clearly underscores her intolerance of the Iranian
authorities. However, this is juxtaposed with the next frame which illustrates Marjane
lying down on her bed, lamenting ‘Misery! At the same age Marie Curie first went to
France to study, I’ll probably have ten children…’ as emanata also portrays her
crying. This illustrates how Marjane quickly transitions from intolerant to the victim of
intolerance, as her comparison with Marie Curie highlights the societal constraints
Iranian women faced. The hyperbole of ‘ten children’ also shows how Marjane feels

© David McIntyre, InThinking
http://www.thinkib.net/englishalanglit 1




destined to become a mother. In this way, Sartrapi illustrates how even the intolerant
may inevitably be destined to become victims of external oppression.

In a similar way, in A View From the Bridge, Miller shows the intolerance and
restrictions of females in society, not only brought into prominence by the social and
cultural norms of 1950’s America, but also within the domestic sphere of the home.
However, in contrast to Marjane, Beatrice is already fulfilling her role as Eddie’s wife.
Whilst Beatrice is evidently a victim of patriarchal intolerance, she too, like Marjane
and Taji, attempts to challenge the stereotypical and submissive roles of females.
Whilst other characters in the play often evade explicitly saying what they actually
mean, Beatrice is, by contrast, rather forward and forthcoming as she confronts
Eddie about their troubled sexual relationship, saying ‘when am I gonna be a wife
again, Eddie?’ The 1950s audience would probably be shocked by this exclamation,
as women would be expected to accommodate to their husbands rather than reveal
intolerance with their circumstance. However, it is also clear that Beatrice’s
emphasis on her role as ‘a wife’ portrays her as a victim who is unable to escape
from patriarchal society’s intolerance of females attempting to challenge their
husbands, which is continuously emphasised by Eddie throughout the play.

In Persepolis, Satrapi shows how the Islamic regime’s intolerance of revolt and
threat may not only victimise those who have been intolerant to the regime, but also
closed and personal ones. In ‘The Sheep’ as the Islamic regime seeks to
assassinate outspoken critics, Uncle Anoosh continues to remain intolerant by
saying ‘everything will be alright!’ However, when it is clear that he will be their next
target, he laments ‘everything will be alright…’ The use of punctuation indicates a
change in tone as he shifts from the optimistic exclamation to the more uncertain and
downcast ellipsis. At the same time, he is shown to have changed clothes from white
to black. His body stance alters too, and he is no longer shown to be confident and
upright in posture. These transitions signal the change that occurs as Anoosh moves
from an intolerant critic of the Islamic regime to a victim. Anoosh, inevitably, is
assassinated, and Marjane is portrayed as victimised as she shouts at God, ‘shut up
you! Get out of my life!!’ Through such a blasphemous and controversial rejection of
God, Satrapi aims to show that the intolerance of the regime victimises its targets but
also others who must watch them suffer. The jagged speech bubble and exclamation
marks clearly convey Marjane’s immense despair as she becomes increasingly
intolerant of the regime as the novel develops.

In A View From the Bridge, Miller shows how the intolerance of the threat of power
between males in a domestic household setting. These stem from Eddie assuming
the role of patriarch and ‘alpha-male’ as well as his incestuous desire towards
Catherine. Miller ends Act 1 with a climax in dramatic tension when Eddie,
Catherine, Beatrice, Rodolpho, and Marco are all in the domestic setting of the living
room, interweaving elements of Greek Tragedy such as the unity of place. Eddie’s
intolerance in this scene is clear. Rodolpho says to Catherine ‘dance, Catherine.
Come’, and the stage directions indicate that he takes her by the hand. Whilst they
dance, the stage directions show Eddie deep in thought and he sits on a chair,
unhappy and intolerant at the turn of events. Marco, however, is in turn unhappy with
Eddie’s bullying of Rodolpho, and he shows his intolerance indicated in stage


© David McIntyre, InThinking
http://www.thinkib.net/englishalanglit 2




directions. Marco ‘looks down’ at Eddie before taking a chair and lifting it ‘like a
weapon’ over Eddie’s head. This dramatic simile, the use of proxemics and the
inclusion of realistic props such as the chair amplify the tension the audience feel at
the curtain. The conflict between Marco and Eddie is clear. Eddie initially intolerant of
Rodolpho is now the victim of Marco’s intolerance.

Lastly, in Persepolis, Satrapi illustrates the regime’s intolerance of lower social

classes in Iran, although unlike other characters, it is only Marjane who is portrayed
to be obviously intolerant of the regime’s injustice. In ‘The Letter’, in an attempt to
bridge the gap between social classes, Marjane helps Mehri, her maid, to write a
letter to Hossein, a neighbour Mehri is in love with. However, when the relationship is
stopped by Eby, Marjane’s father, Mehri and Marjane are both drawn lying on the
same bed and Marjane says ‘we were not in the same social class but at least we
were in the same bed’. The use of the collective pronoun ‘we’ indicates that Marjane
is trying to create some sense of unity between them. Moreover, the repetition of
‘same’ shows how Marjane regards them as equals despite their difference in social
status. This episode shows the inevitability of Mehri remaining a victim of class
intolerance, Marjane is intolerant of such class-based prejudice, further revealed
when Marjane encourages Mehri to protest at the Black Friday Massacre.

In A View From the Bridge, Miller explores the intolerance of opposing cultures,
evident in the conflict between Sicilian American codes of justice and the American
law. From the play’s prologue, Mr Alfieri, the Red Hook lawyer, provides the
audience with insight into the intolerance and conflict that govern the play, like a
Greek chorus. Having migrated from Sicily to Red Hook when he was twenty-five
years old, he recognizes the conflict between the two competing worldviews,
manifested in the two characters of Marco and Rodolpho. As the play concludes, Mr
Alfieri ‘turns to the audience’ and says ‘it is better to settle for half’. At the beginning
of the play, he foreshadows the cathartic moment of Eddie’s death when he says,
metaphorically, that ‘he watched it run its bloody course’. Both at the beginning and
culmination of the play, the audience sees Mr Alfieri is a rational bystander. His role
enables him an elevated degree of insight, highlighting how intolerance leads to
victimisation and tragic death.

In conclusion, both Satrapi and Miller present different forms of intolerance. Although
the nature of intolerance, the societies, and genres differ, there may be a sense that
intolerance is a human universal. If this is accurate, it may be further claimed that
although intolerance can be justified, the outcome of intolerance for individuals is not
generally positive. Moreover, individuals are neither simply intolerant or the victims of
intolerance. Their role changes, depending on circumstance.

© David McIntyre, InThinking
http://www.thinkib.net/englishalanglit 3