Martyr!
Chapter Thirty-one
by Kaveh AkbarThe chapter opens with the narrator reflecting on their first experience with death, which they missed entirely, leaving them with unresolved grief. This time, they aim to confront their own mortality head-on through their final art installation, *Death-Speak*, which serves as a literal and metaphorical presence in the face of death. The narrator contrasts their experience with Leila, who may have found clarity in death, while they remain burdened by the weight of living. The installation becomes a way to reclaim agency and witness their own demise, rejecting passive acceptance in favor of active participation.
The narrator draws inspiration from Farrokhzad’s poetry, particularly the raw, unadorned expression of sorrow and urgency in lines like “O Muslims, I am sad tonight.” They resonate with the poet’s rejection of artifice, seeing it as a direct confrontation with the abyss of human existence. This simplicity and honesty align with their artistic philosophy, which rejects the notion of art as mere ornamentation. Instead, they view art as a vital means of shared understanding, a way to store collective knowledge and emotion beyond individual lifespans.
The chapter critiques the modern commodification of art as decorative, tracing its origins to the whims of the wealthy who sought beauty devoid of deeper meaning. The narrator challenges this tradition, arguing that art’s true purpose is to convey urgent, unfiltered truths. Their installation, *Death-Speak*, embodies this ethos by presenting death in its unvarnished reality—ugly, messy, and unavoidable. The narrator’s confrontation with mortality is stripped of pretense, mirroring Farrokhzad’s plainspoken despair and rejecting the expectation that art must always aspire to beauty.
The chapter concludes with a tense exchange between the narrator and Sang, their former lover and gallerist, who initially dismisses the installation as melodramatic. Their argument reveals unresolved tensions and Sang’s hurt over being kept in the dark about the narrator’s terminal diagnosis. Despite her resistance, Sang ultimately contributes the title *Death-Speak*, symbolizing their enduring connection. The narrator’s determination to proceed, regardless of venue or approval, underscores their commitment to authenticity, even as Sang questions whether every act must carry symbolic weight. Their final, unresolved dialogue lingers on the inevitability of the narrator’s choice.
FAQs
1. What is the significance of the narrator’s final installation, Death-Speak, and how does it relate to their perspective on art?
Answer:
Death-Speak represents the narrator’s desire to be present for their own death as an artistic act, contrasting with their first experience of loss where they felt absent. The installation rejects traditional notions of art as mere ornament or beauty, instead embracing raw, unfiltered expression (“saying it plain”). The narrator critiques the modern concept of art-as-decoration, referencing how historically art served as a means of collective knowledge preservation. By choosing to die publicly as their final artwork, they return to what they see as art’s primal purpose: direct, urgent communication of human experience without aesthetic pretense.2. How does the Farrokhzad poetry excerpt function in the narrator’s reflection on mortality and artistic expression?
Answer:
The Farrokhzad poem (“I won’t see spring… O Muslims, I am sad tonight”) serves as a touchstone for the narrator’s philosophy of artistic honesty. They admire its emotional directness and lack of artifice, seeing it as a model for confronting mortality without decorative language. Though not religiously observant, the narrator connects with the poem’s universal cry of sorrow that transcends specific belief systems. The lines validate their own approach in Death-Speak - using art not for beauty’s sake but to communicate fundamental human truths (“this is desperate, this is urgent”) when facing the “abyss” of existence.3. Analyze the complex relationship dynamics between the narrator and Sang as revealed in this chapter.
Answer:
The narrator and Sang share a layered history spanning romantic partnership, artistic collaboration, and enduring friendship. Their relationship was asymmetrical - Sang loved deeply and naturally while the narrator appreciated being loved but couldn’t reciprocate fully (“I loved watching her love me”). This imbalance created subtle tensions, like the narrator waiting for Sang to sleep before coming to bed. Their professional bond persists despite romantic dissolution, evidenced by Sang’s crucial role in naming Death-Speak. Their confrontation about the installation reveals unresolved care - Sang’s anger masks concern, while the narrator’s withholding of their diagnosis shows lingering emotional barriers even between intimate companions.4. How does the chapter challenge conventional Western notions about the purpose and value of art?
Answer:
The narrator presents a radical critique of Western art traditions by rejecting the Renaissance-derived concept of art as decorative beauty (“a painting of a blooming rose”). They argue this ornamental approach emerged recently in human history, tied to aristocratic leisure. Instead, they champion art’s original evolutionary purpose: as a vital means of storing and transmitting collective knowledge (“keeping all our extra knowing in language”). This perspective elevates art’s functional role in human survival over aesthetic pleasure, suggesting contemporary art institutions like the Met have lost touch with art’s primal capacity for truth-telling about fundamental experiences like mortality.5. What psychological and philosophical insights does the chapter offer about confronting mortality?
Answer:
The narrator distinguishes between two experiences of death: passive absence (Leila’s plane crash) and active presence (Death-Speak). They suggest conventional approaches to dying often leave the living with “all the loss, none of the reward,” creating unresolved grief. By contrast, consciously orchestrating one’s death as art becomes an act of agency against life’s “inertia.” This reflects existentialist philosophy - creating meaning through action when faced with life’s absurdity. The “tubes” and “gunk” imagery rejects romanticized dying, insisting on confronting mortality’s physical reality while still finding significance in the confrontation itself.
Quotes
1. “The first time I died, I wasn’t even there. The whole payoff, the answer to the question of what happens afterward—I didn’t get any of that.”
This opening line introduces the chapter’s central theme of confronting mortality and the desire to be present for one’s own death. It sets up the narrator’s philosophical approach to dying and their artistic project Death-Speak.
2. “For our species, the idea of art as ornament is a relatively new one… Art was a way of storing our brains in each other’s.”
This quote captures the narrator’s perspective on art’s fundamental purpose - not as mere decoration, but as a vital means of shared human consciousness and survival. It critiques modern commodification of art while explaining their own artistic philosophy.
3. “I’m dying. Here I am. It’s ugly… You just have to say it plain: ‘O Muslims, I am sad tonight.’”
This powerful statement embodies the raw, unadorned approach of Death-Speak. The narrator rejects artistic pretense in favor of direct confrontation with mortality, mirroring the simplicity they admire in Farrokhzad’s poetry.
4. “It’s easy to resent those who love you. Those who are over eager with their affection. Too performative. But I loved how Sang loved me…”
This introspective moment reveals the complex dynamics of the narrator’s past relationship with Sang. It shows their self-awareness about emotional limitations while acknowledging the genuine connection they shared.
5. “You know not everything is connected, don’t you? Everything doesn’t have to stand in for everything else?”
Sang’s challenge to the narrator represents a key tension in the chapter - between seeing death/art as profound metaphor versus accepting things at face value. This exchange crystallizes their differing worldviews.