Scan barcode
swfountaine's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
slow-paced
3.75
athoughtfulrecord's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
3.0
rglossner's review against another edition
3.0
Nafisi considers America through the lens of Huckleberry Finn, Babbitt, and The Heart is a Lonely Hunter. As she did in Reading Lolita, personal stories are woven with literary criticism. Made me want to do some re-reading of these important books.
vgjuraj's review against another edition
4.0
This literary criticism opens a new window forever changing the way you will read fiction in the future. Brilliant.
shinaabikwe's review against another edition
I made it through Huck Finn, enjoyed all the memoir parts regarding her and her fellow Iranians experiences as refugees but just could not get through the literary discussion of the second book, it was too dry and boring for the long drives I look to listen to audio memoirs.
grllopez's review against another edition
2.0
Unfortunately, this did not live up to my bookish expectations. : (
My review: The Republic of Imagination: A Life in Books
My review: The Republic of Imagination: A Life in Books
ivleafclover's review against another edition
5.0
I've read the first section on Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, will wait until I read Babbitt and re-read The Heart is a Lonely Hunter to finish. This is the first time I've ever been compelled to take pictures of quotes and post them to my Twitter feed.
allygriggles's review against another edition
3.0
This book was kind of just okay. I think the introduction was my favorite part, and it got me really fired up about literature. I loved the idea of all American literature having something in common that no other culture's literature has, even when coming from very different authors. Admittedly, I haven't read "Reading Lolita" in years, but I remember it being much, much better than "Republic of Imagination." The memoir segments after the first part of the book were mostly boring. They were about Americans she had gone to college with and where they were now, none of which seemed to have very much to do with the literature she was discussing. The memoirs in "Reading Lolita" really told a story of why literature was important; the memoirs here were random and did little to break up the heavy academic discussions of the three books. And then the epilogue was really disappointing: it felt like she was trying to tack on more of the same about a book that she had rejected reluctantly. And then she went on a rant about how trigger warnings were a form of censorship, which made it sound like she really doesn't understand what a trigger warning is. Anyway, don't go into this expecting it to be as awesome as "Reading Lolita."
gmrickel's review against another edition
2.0
I wish I had read this with a pen in hand rather than listening to the audiobook. The audio was great, and there is a lot I would have enjoyed deconstructing in the margins had I read it the old fashioned way.
Some thoughts that I can remember: part one is a moving read that profiles a friendship as much as it does literature. You won’t be able to help thinking about your best friend, loss, grief, and how to honor friendship when you read this section. AND this is the section that focuses on Huck Finn so she weighs in on the n-word debate. Her quotes from Huck Finn were often ones that included the n-word. All of this made me uncomfortable.
The remaining parts gave me the distinct impression that Nafisi wouldn’t be on team “stay in your lane” when it comes to writing the other. She doesn’t bring up publishing at all in her analysis, she is focused on reading and occasionally ventures into writing. Leaving out publishing is kind of a big deal! It’s not JUST about why/what people want to write/read, it’s also about the power dynamics inherent in publishing. There is one anecdote that has Baldwin telling his publisher to fuck off when they told him to write for black audiences, but she uses this to point out how writers can write whatever because it’s about the “human experience” rather than talking about why a publisher would ask that.
Her analysis of TWs is incomplete as it doesn’t bring up the difference between acknowledging trauma versus completely removing material to “avoid” trauma. Her view is basically life isn’t safe, there are no safe spaces, literature can help teach you (not harm you), those who need these things are “sissies”. Within her response to TWs for college campus class materials she is going through a document that lists various isms, including cissexism, and says “I don’t even know what cissexism is!” All I could think was, you don’t have access to the Internet? You’re just gonna bash on all this and not bother to do real research first?
There were some thought nuggets I enjoyed and loved, and there were many I found to be problematic. Well written, I mostly just didn’t agree with her.
Some thoughts that I can remember: part one is a moving read that profiles a friendship as much as it does literature. You won’t be able to help thinking about your best friend, loss, grief, and how to honor friendship when you read this section. AND this is the section that focuses on Huck Finn so she weighs in on the n-word debate. Her quotes from Huck Finn were often ones that included the n-word. All of this made me uncomfortable.
The remaining parts gave me the distinct impression that Nafisi wouldn’t be on team “stay in your lane” when it comes to writing the other. She doesn’t bring up publishing at all in her analysis, she is focused on reading and occasionally ventures into writing. Leaving out publishing is kind of a big deal! It’s not JUST about why/what people want to write/read, it’s also about the power dynamics inherent in publishing. There is one anecdote that has Baldwin telling his publisher to fuck off when they told him to write for black audiences, but she uses this to point out how writers can write whatever because it’s about the “human experience” rather than talking about why a publisher would ask that.
Her analysis of TWs is incomplete as it doesn’t bring up the difference between acknowledging trauma versus completely removing material to “avoid” trauma. Her view is basically life isn’t safe, there are no safe spaces, literature can help teach you (not harm you), those who need these things are “sissies”. Within her response to TWs for college campus class materials she is going through a document that lists various isms, including cissexism, and says “I don’t even know what cissexism is!” All I could think was, you don’t have access to the Internet? You’re just gonna bash on all this and not bother to do real research first?
There were some thought nuggets I enjoyed and loved, and there were many I found to be problematic. Well written, I mostly just didn’t agree with her.