Reviewing memories of "Khakriz-e Pishani (Frontal Embankment)"

Time, Place, Subject and Relationship of Narrator with Subject

Fatemeh Daftari
Translated by Ruhollah Golmoradi

2017-7-18

According to Oral History Website of Iran, the second book review of book 27 was held by addressing "Khakriz-e Pishani" by Alireza Ashtari and expert review of Mohammad Ghassemipour, author and researcher, in Book Exchange Center on Monday, July 03, 2017 at 5: 00 p.m. This book narrates defense of Hamzeh Battalion of 27th Mohammad Rasulullah (PBUH) Division in forehead of Al-Faw- Umm Qasr Road in March 1986.

At the beginning of the meeting, Ghassemipour asked Ashtari to give an explanation of his work. Ashtari said, "This book is a memory; a memory which was written with realistic narrative obsession. If you read it, you would see that it is not just procedure of memories, but there is also emotion of the speaker or author about memories. For example, a thing that he had saw he talked about it. It's not just camera trajectory of the story, but what he had in his heart was also talked.

Basis was notebook

When the book was written, there was an important argument on about, for example, that genre of memory telling of field of Sacred Defense is going to be non-documentary; the important issue caused more extreme obsession of the writer in order to be more precise. Basis of these memories was a notebook that was with us at that time and I wrote some things there. A series of notebooks that there was Imam Khomeini's photo on back of cover and was written on it notebook of Islam warriors. A notebook with about fifty, sixty sheets and you could write in it. Almost all the guys had one in pocket of their khakis for current affairs. Then we wrote in them, for example, now someone died a martyr, now we started to go somewhere, now is some time. I wrote some codes like these, the same codes helped to make a lot of things accurate when I try to remind them."

After this introduction, the writer pointing out that "a hook that attracts the reader to read a book is start point" addressed to read the first part of the book: "It was sunset of March 24, 1986. Two battalions of the guys of 27th Division were given leave to go their city and homes. A train had come to take us Tehran. Seven or eight inspection lines were made in entrance of Dokuhe Bridge. The guys of Prévôt army were ready and checked everybody. There was a five, six people line which was aligned in front of them with their luggage, and at the other side, rest of the guys sit in lines of their companies and waited for finishing work of these five, six people..."

Collective narrative, individual narrative

After reading almost a page of the book by the author, Ghassemipour began critique and reviewing the book with the question that "the narrator, sometimes narrates collectively sometimes individually. But overall, collective narrative is preferable and is in the first place. We have often seen a lot in literature of camp, detention, and captivity that memories are narrated collectively in long pages, and the narrator has excuse of being in captivity and rest home and it is accepted, and he has preferred to narrate collectively. What was reason for preferring collective instead of individual narrative and whether it was consciously or unconsciously? "

In response to this question, Alireza Ashtari said: "It has been unconsciously. When I took pen to write, I did not think about these things at all, and I wrote everything I thought it was good to write. Because this was my first work, it was first book that I have written. I did not really think so much about writing collectively or individually or descriptive. I just thought very much about its document, since Morteza Sarhangi, founder of Office for the Literature & Arts of Resistance, had emphasized that be careful not get out of document and citation. I tried to give date, I tried to check the memories very carefully by help of the guys of our platoon, and I referred dates. I had a yearbook of 1364 (SH), I referred it. Citation and document was important for me, and I did not consider much about being a collectively or individually."

Ghassemipour was not convinced by this answer, pointing out that: "I guess the author wanted to be humble and modest that preferred a collective narrative. It was preferable to distance himself from first person singular and he wanted to use "I" less, but considerations with collective narrative sometimes make it difficult to believe the story and its credibility, and intimacy occurs hardly and late and sometimes does not happen. Although it is not uniform, sometimes the narrator becomes himself and says of his own internalities, but there are large scopes in the text that pronouns are constantly plural, verbs are plural and events occur generally."

He read a part of the book to testify the understanding: "First we came to Hamzeh Battalion we were a little distressed ..." the author answered: "I thought when you look like a camera, you see all were distressed." But Ghassemipour did not accept rationale of this generalization.

Then, Gul-ali Babaei, who was himself a Sacred Defense warrior and wrote his own memoirs and other narratives of the imposed war of Saddam Hossein against Islamic Republic of Iran, explained about the approach of the author: "I think this kind of approach is a an approach which is more evident in literature of Seventy and early eighties (SH) decades and come back to spirit of warriors who wrote memory, and it was often ignoring their own leanings and seeing collectively themselves and their friends. So, Mr. Ashtari had written the book for the first time titled "Five Days of Defense" in 2003, then rewrote, edited and published it in a new edition. This approach is view of those years and it is after that we see books that have been fashioned in recent years are mostly first-person, like "One Woman's War: Da (Mother)", which is in first-person form. At that time, this kind of writing was fashion and they wanted less to show their selfishness. While first-person communicates much better with audience, attracts audience easier and this is difficult in a collective narrative."

Memories of a platoon of warriors

Expert of the session then asked the author how much did he know about methods of story writing and how much did it contribute to writing the memories? Ashtari replied: "I was not at all familiar with methods of story writing" and he knew this as strength of his book which was written without regarding methods. He emphasized that during writing of the book only Kourosh Aliani was as co-author of the book. But Ghassemipour emphasizing unbelievability of the issue talked about that throughout the book footprint of techniques and methods of story writing are seen, and imaginaries are very successful. To prove this, he read a part of the book: "On the contrary, Soori's deputy was Taher Moazen who was best for bantering. Taher was a thin and tall and handsome young. In his face, at one moment, there was both frown and a fake smile. In his curly hair and beard which was lined up and sparse. He always put his Khaki on his pants and wore a white Keffiyeh around his neck and run very proudly around and groaned..."

Ghassemipour admired precise descriptions of "Khakriz-e Pishani" and called it strength of the book, but about that in some parts the author forgot some people names but narrates their memories, he asked if the writer could not give up expressing their memories? Ashtari replied: "When we write chronology, why should we ignore those people?" Ghassempour said, "It means going toward writing about a unit. That is the author writes memories of the platoon instead of Alireza Ashtari's memories. "Ashtari also replied:" name of the book shows that it is memories of the platoon." Ghassemipour, after hearing this answer, said: "so it was better to write in introduction of that it is fulfilling an obligation of Mr. Ashtari to the platoon that he had served in it."

In continuance, one of participants (Mr. Kalateh) asked the author: "Finally, is the memory, memory of crowd or person? Is it memory of the author or the platoon? And if it was based on one of these, how much was share of individual and people around? "Yahya Niazi, author and another participant answered this question: "There is no definite border, a kind of chronology was done which somewhere we call it memory and in some places a story narrative or other name, but, as Mr. Ghassemipour pointed out, the book is not out of literary techniques and figures of speech, and it is seen in many places and it is maybe due to Mr. Ashtari hadn't addressed much in 2003, but this may was occurred in rewriting. About some points, such as whether this is a person narrative or a narrative of a platoon in defense line, reality is that some things must have happened completely and aren't very describable. About the front guys, sometimes in describing, as you use figures of speech, as much as it is interesting, as you do characterization and imagine about place, in fact, if those conditions were not felt, it would not reach those favorable results. Therefore, in narratives of the war, even research and documentary works, you cannot keep the pastel line between memory and rhetorical figures and in many cases these are intertwined and overlapped. So it's so awesome and skeletal."

Ghasemipour went on to ask the author, referring to a part of precise and influential narrative of the author about collapse of an industrial shed, which led to martyrdom of two combatants, about scene-setting and creating scenes in the book, if these scene setting were consciously? Ashtari replied: "during writing I did not think about these issues, and I just tried to write everything I had seen in a way that a reader who does not know the atmosphere could communicate with it. At that time, I did not know the techniques."

Ghassimpour then point out that the book addresses a fact that, after 32 years, can travel a new generation to that space; while even cinema couldn't to do this illustration as strong. The descriptions are so precise that when reader sees photos at the end of the book, he is completely familiar with that space. He regarded the book as a precious document to get acquainted with mood of the youth of that era.

Four pillars and sense of event

After these discussions, the session expert addressed issue of time and that "how much we are allowed to write in memoirs go forward or backward; why do we have to go ahead to year 2000 when we are talking about a memory of 1985? This method eradicates sense of an event and it is not pleasant; for example, when you talk about shooting a warrior by a quiver, you take the reader with yourself from the front to years and places in distant future."

Ashtari answered: "author is creator of text and can do whatever he/she wants with his/her book" and Gul-ali Babaei, in completing the point, linked style of writing the book to policy of first publisher of the book that most of his books are the same; memory books with a fictional theme. Ghassemipour added: "four main pillars of memory: time, place, subject and relation of narrator with subject, were fully regarded throughout this book. Time is strictly regarded either as a physical element or as a general concept. Places are well-known. It is a feature of this book that we don't encounter ambiguity in any chapter."

He described the book as a work that transfer bases of sacrifice and devotion and abnegation of the warriors, which wasn't transferred during time, to the present generation, and said: "It is a historical social documentary, time and place are fully clear in it, and because of strength of citations memory can be fully effective in field of social historiography; even the cinema practitioners can use it to design a scene and to make it realistic."

Ashtari also said: "book of "Khakriz-e Pishani" has image, in true sense, and it is one step to become a script. If a scriptwriter reads it, he/she can easily write a good script from its narrator."

The final issue that Mohammad Ghassemipour posed about the book was a military discussion; "why there is not anything about portable transceiver conversations and reader does not know whether we did anything against Iraqi heavy fire. The fact that a platoon deployed with light weapons and at most RPG against a strong army armed with a variety of heavy weapons, engage the reader that really how much the platoon was oppressed, and it is somehow contradictory with field facts; if so, why there is no its report? Vacancy of our organization's heavy fighting forces in field is a question."

Ashtari responded that the portable transceiver was in trench of Haj Mo'azen that he didn't enter there at all. He also said about forces of heavy fight organization they operated well and gave evidence such as IRGC artillery measures. Also reason of not to be addressed in the book was that they themselves (the narrator and the platoon) did not fire of artillery.

At the end of the session, the editor of the book was also criticized, including not deleting some additions that were not necessary to be in the text, but because of only two misspellings throughout the book, he was appreciated.

"Khakriz-e Pishani: Defense of Hamzeh Battalion, 27th Mohammad Rasulullah (PBUH) Division, Frontal of Al-Faw- Umm Qasr Road, March 1986", written by Alireza Ashtari and edited by Javad Kalateh- Arabi, was published by the Institute for Preserving Relics and Publishing Values of Sacred Defense of Mohammad Rasullulah (PBUH) and the Center for Research Studies of Bethat 27.