Overrated and Heavily Inaccurate and Biased Account of Iranian History
As one commentator pointed out, Aria is nothing but a “mediocre soap with the noise turned up”.
It is full of historical errors and inaccuracies. I give A FEW examples. 1) In the first chapter set in 1958-1959, a political group called Fadaian Khalgh is mentioned. This group was founded in 1971. 2) In the last chapter, Khomeini, while landing in Tehran, is described as wearing a WHITE turban. Like Ayatollah Khamenei, the current Iranian Supreme Leader, Khomeini wore a BLACK turban. Clerics who are considered to be related to Prophet Mohammed by blood wear BLACK turbans. 3) Evin prison, where Mithra is taken, has a CAFETERIA for prisoners. Ask anyone who once was in Evin and they tell you this is RIDICULOUS! 4) A park in North of Tehran where characters meet BEFORE the revolution, “SHAHANSHAHI PARK”, is mentioned by its name AFTER the revolution “MEALLAT PARTK”.
These examples show that the author has no deep understanding of what she’s writing about. She left Iran with her family when she was seven and never returned for a visit, which is alright. The problem is that she claims authenticity and knowledge on the subject. She said in an interview, by writing this book, she has become the VOICE of the VOICELESS.
Hozar not only doesn’t have a subtle knowledge of Iranian history and Iranian life, but she does also have a good grasp of the geography of Tehran, either. Tehran is a huge metropole. Distances between various neighborhoods and places are not that short as she describes (e.g. Mellat Park and Yousef Abad are not close; Darband and Shush are very far such that characters cannot be in one place and soon appear in the other.
The various mistakes she commits throughout the book are too many to be ignored. Historical and geographical mistakes aside, the story itself is so unrealistic that it resembles a Bollywood movie. Most events and relationships are hardly believable and give the story the aura of a fairy tale. Narrative development is also fairytale-like. There is no good dramatic arc. The protagonist, Aria, has almost no role in the progression of her own story. Rather than the protagonist's wants and choices and struggles moving the plot, things happen to Aria the story forward. The book can be much shorter. There are lots of superfluous details and descriptions and unnecessary characters like Fereshteh's brother who has a cleanliness obsession. What do function he and his obsession serve to advance the plot?
Drawn in black and white, characters also resemble fairy tale personas. Hozar portrays mostly her poor characters as evil (e.g. Zahra) while portraying the rich as good. At least in Bollywood movies, the poor and destitute are not evil. It seems that the author detests the destitute living in south Tehran. Even the good kid Kamran suddenly turns evil at the end!
With all its falsehood and soap opera-ish plot and character development, Aria is a prime example of neo-orientalist literature promoted by corporate North American publishers. In the same way, as the US government sold lies about Iraq possessing nuclear weapons to Americans and Europeans, Penguin/Random House and Hozar sell lies about Iran with regard to the 1979 Iranian Revolution to Western readers who cannot discern facts from fiction. In their promotional material, the publisher says this book is about the revolution whereas only a small part of the book is about this subject. Aria comes out at a time when Trump canceled the nuclear deal with Iran, put severe economic sanctions on Iran, and threatens to wage a war against Iran (turn Iran to ruins in a few days to paraphrase Trump). The book provides proper material to support ideas that the Revolution, in which MILLIONS OF IRANIANS took part, was an entirely violent event that brought the beastly members of the working class like Kamran (a bead seller) and Fereshteh’s lover (a gardener) to power. Aria is a timely novel to justify a possible future war on Iran, its sovereignty and independence gained as the result of the revolution. I am not a supporter of the Islamic regime but I believe that, as Jewish philosopher Hannah Ardent points out, “fake literature” like Aria, full of historical inaccuracies and fabrications, only strengthens totalitarian regimes.
The book not only condemns the Iranian Revolution and depicts Iran as a backward, poor, and brutal country, but also, in a subtle way, promotes the US as an advanced and progressive country. While the book comes out around the fiftieth anniversary of Americans landing on the moon, a few pages in Chapters Two and Three are dedicated to this event, even though this does not serve anything in the development of the story. It only serves to glorify Americans.
Last but not the least, this is outrageous to compare the debut novel of a Canadian writer who has no place in Iranian Literature to the masterpiece of one of the most prominent Russian writers who won a Nobel Prize in Literature. Pasternak was well-established in Russian literature before he wrote Dr. Zhivago. He was a poet, literary translator, and novelist with several books. Moreover, like Akhmatova and others, he was among literary resistance against the Stalinist regime and therefore subject to the Stalinist purge in 1934. What book has Hozar written in Persian? I doubt that she can even read and write in Farsi. Who is Margaret Atwood, who has become a commercial figure and the poster-writer of corporate publishers, kidding? Her blurb is as ridiculous as if some Canadian poet compared a debut collection of poetry written by a Russian writer, the son of Iranian ex-patriots, with the masterpiece of Jalel-e-din Mawlana Rumi, Masnavi Manavi.