This blog is dedicated to the first half of Megillat Ester, by J.T. Waldman. This graphic novel is complex to say the least, I guess I will start where I usually do, the art, the art of Megillat Ester is in a word, oppressive. It is that the art is heavily inked with dark borders. It feels incredibly contained; this combined with the dark stylistic Hebrew makes the whole piece appear heavy and oppressive.
This is interesting though because the stylization of the panels as well as the Hebrew letters, also break it free of the normal flow and pattern of the standard comic book. The layout of the pages is not the set standard pattern that most comics use in their approach to storytelling, but rather it changes flowing differently on almost each page. Then why does the author included what appears to be a contradiction, and oppressive art style with a truly free layout?
I think the best approach here is to see that the art, once again, is a continuation of the narrative, while this is no surprise in something that is called a graphic novel, I think it is important to distinguish the fact that these images are different. The characters within the panels are heavily inked and they have about them a gravity that is usually ignored in comics. I believe the author does this as a way to show that while they may appear free they are being controlled. The King is being manipulated by his advisors, the women are being taken from their homes, and the Judeans’’ are marked for slaughter. The first half of the narrative is very heavy a dark and the art style really reflect that. I think the heavy borders also reflect the confinement of the characters. In the first half of the narrative it’s not often that the frame of a panel is broken. The only time that specifically comes to mind is the hanging. The hanging image in which two men are hanged from a tree, the boarder fades into words. This, I think, is supposed to mean that in death they are free unlimited by the bonds of earth, of course this is without taking in to account any afterworld punishment, or the fact that they were attempted assassins. So the borders create an oppressive atmosphere while reading the text, however there is a sort of freedom in the panels.
The panels in this graphic novel do not often flow in the standard pattern of left to right then down, that most comics books have, instead the images flow freely (and not to jump the gun early but the book also flips completely at one point to be read more in the manga style). This is evident in the tear drop image as well as the image where the advisor throws the dice (a d20 by the way), these images show a lack of conformity to the genres style as a whole. It is like opening Paradise Lost and finding someone twisting the sentences in to shapes of various kinds, it’s disconcerting.
Why have the paradox, why mix stylistic freedom with stylistic oppression? Mayhap it is because the author wishes to show the state in which Ester is in, both controlled and yet she may have anything up to half the kingdom so it’s hard to call that subjugated.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Justice
It is a simple philosophical question (that statement feels oxymoronic), is justice righteous, and ethically sound cause, or is it a vendetta, a seeking of vengeance which none ought to condone. Compound that question with wondering if vengeance is really a bad thing, then again by wondering where the dichotomy lies if vendettas are ethically appropriate, it all becomes very murky very fast. Well this theme is what I’m going to explore in the research paper, I will be examining the idea of justice in graphic novels and in Jewish mythology and I want to see what comes out, whether they agree, disagree, or have varying narratives.
To that end I will be employing Alan Moore’s Watchmen, and V for Vendetta, as well as a few essays on justice in the Dark Knight run of Batman. While this appears to be a limited sample I think it will provide ample evidence. It might also be argued that in my selection for graphic novels I am being too narrow in that I am only selecting graphic novels that show the darker grittier side of graphic novels. To which I completely agree, this selection, I think, captures the “id” of humanity better than others. Superman would be like holding up a fun house mirror to society and saying that is what it is. To understand the human ideas of justice you must look at both authors who are not afraid to use more dark and realistic material, as well as flawed characters. It is important that the every shade of black be apparent in the relative darkness of humanity. That each step that is taken to understand the worst parts of humanity help us better understand the whole (I also might be a bit bias against humanity being as I view it as a pretty awful collective). I also think these ideas are supported in Jewish mythology.
The crux of my essay will also center heavily on Jewish mythology, both in the Hebrew Bible as well as mythology outside of sacred texts. These will serve primarily as references to divine justice, or justice approved by God. Which I think will also pull in to light that justice is little more than a more palatable word for revenge, and vendetta. I will focus mostly on the rich mythological text, but infused with some writing on the actual philosophical approach to justice with in Jewish text.
By the end of my paper I will show that there is an agreeance in Jewish mythology and graphic novels as to what justice truly is an act of revenge. While there is often a vial of righteous agenda, what is truly present is rage and vendetta, whether it is V, Rorschach, Moses, or Bruce Wayne they all were a mask ( three of the four literally) of valor.
To that end I will be employing Alan Moore’s Watchmen, and V for Vendetta, as well as a few essays on justice in the Dark Knight run of Batman. While this appears to be a limited sample I think it will provide ample evidence. It might also be argued that in my selection for graphic novels I am being too narrow in that I am only selecting graphic novels that show the darker grittier side of graphic novels. To which I completely agree, this selection, I think, captures the “id” of humanity better than others. Superman would be like holding up a fun house mirror to society and saying that is what it is. To understand the human ideas of justice you must look at both authors who are not afraid to use more dark and realistic material, as well as flawed characters. It is important that the every shade of black be apparent in the relative darkness of humanity. That each step that is taken to understand the worst parts of humanity help us better understand the whole (I also might be a bit bias against humanity being as I view it as a pretty awful collective). I also think these ideas are supported in Jewish mythology.
The crux of my essay will also center heavily on Jewish mythology, both in the Hebrew Bible as well as mythology outside of sacred texts. These will serve primarily as references to divine justice, or justice approved by God. Which I think will also pull in to light that justice is little more than a more palatable word for revenge, and vendetta. I will focus mostly on the rich mythological text, but infused with some writing on the actual philosophical approach to justice with in Jewish text.
By the end of my paper I will show that there is an agreeance in Jewish mythology and graphic novels as to what justice truly is an act of revenge. While there is often a vial of righteous agenda, what is truly present is rage and vendetta, whether it is V, Rorschach, Moses, or Bruce Wayne they all were a mask ( three of the four literally) of valor.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Jobnik
I alluded to Jobnik in my Red Son post earlier today. Well now I would like to dedicate a blog to the idea of violence in Jobnik and were I see there to be a contradiction between the ideas presented about violence and the art style.
Jobnik focuses on an American’s Jew’s time spent in the Israeli army. While she is there the second intifada breaks out and there are casualties on both sides of the struggle. With losses being reported constantly in the newspaper Miriam, the woman who has joined the Israeli army, becomes swallowed by it. Miriam slowly becomes so saturated with the news of the death that it becomes, “background noise.” An interesting thought, given the idea in psychology that the brain will filter out constant unchanging stimuli until the background stimuli are changed. The idea of violence against two people who have opposed view points, is the same as in Red Son. When two groups hold contrary view points, debate will eventually disintegrate into violence. Thus if violence is inevitable why do we seem so shocked by it?
I think the 2nd intifada was so shocking because it came amongst talks of peace. However it does aid my point, debate will result in violence when ideas are polar opposites. What is more interesting is Miriam seems to become desensitized to the violence, the only time she really shows the slightest bit of worry is when a bus runs down an army battalion, and even then the only reasons she worries is because she’s worried if her former lover is one of those who gets hit. So what do we make of violence and war? Is it evident that even the softest heart will become callus and hard with the drone of violence constantly in their ear? The simple answer is yes, but this leads me to the contradiction that I see with the story and the art style.
The art style of Jobnik barrows heavily from the Japanese chibi style, this produces discontinuity in the work, because the chibi style is meant to be very cute and innocent, and obviously putting this during the second intifada displays a heavy bit of juxtaposition. Then why must it be there, as I’ve said it’s a contradiction, one that bothers me to no end. I believe she uses this art style to better represent herself personally. She says she was always a shy outsider in her youth, and that that has really been carried with her to Israel. This art style was chosen for this edition as well as in the original comic form the art was different, so she must have chosen it for a reason. This I think is to illustrate how out of her element she was, when she was swallowed up, in the dessert by stars we see her have a mini break down and again later we see her in her chibi form she really sees the world as innocent, which is surprising given her sexual exploits, so what could she really be meaning juxtaposing a innocent art style with adult ideas.
Jobnik focuses on an American’s Jew’s time spent in the Israeli army. While she is there the second intifada breaks out and there are casualties on both sides of the struggle. With losses being reported constantly in the newspaper Miriam, the woman who has joined the Israeli army, becomes swallowed by it. Miriam slowly becomes so saturated with the news of the death that it becomes, “background noise.” An interesting thought, given the idea in psychology that the brain will filter out constant unchanging stimuli until the background stimuli are changed. The idea of violence against two people who have opposed view points, is the same as in Red Son. When two groups hold contrary view points, debate will eventually disintegrate into violence. Thus if violence is inevitable why do we seem so shocked by it?
I think the 2nd intifada was so shocking because it came amongst talks of peace. However it does aid my point, debate will result in violence when ideas are polar opposites. What is more interesting is Miriam seems to become desensitized to the violence, the only time she really shows the slightest bit of worry is when a bus runs down an army battalion, and even then the only reasons she worries is because she’s worried if her former lover is one of those who gets hit. So what do we make of violence and war? Is it evident that even the softest heart will become callus and hard with the drone of violence constantly in their ear? The simple answer is yes, but this leads me to the contradiction that I see with the story and the art style.
The art style of Jobnik barrows heavily from the Japanese chibi style, this produces discontinuity in the work, because the chibi style is meant to be very cute and innocent, and obviously putting this during the second intifada displays a heavy bit of juxtaposition. Then why must it be there, as I’ve said it’s a contradiction, one that bothers me to no end. I believe she uses this art style to better represent herself personally. She says she was always a shy outsider in her youth, and that that has really been carried with her to Israel. This art style was chosen for this edition as well as in the original comic form the art was different, so she must have chosen it for a reason. This I think is to illustrate how out of her element she was, when she was swallowed up, in the dessert by stars we see her have a mini break down and again later we see her in her chibi form she really sees the world as innocent, which is surprising given her sexual exploits, so what could she really be meaning juxtaposing a innocent art style with adult ideas.
Red Son (spoiler alert, you ought to read it before reading this)
I've never been a huge fan of Superman; as a matter of fact the man of steel has been probably my least favorite super hero; however Red Sun has made me like some of the Superman mythology, at least in the alternate universe that Red Son presents. I want to talk about the idea of world conflict this week, in both Red Son and in my later post Jobnik. Red Son presents an alternate world were superman arrives on earth twelve hours later, and thus lands in the Ukraine in 1938 rather than the United States. He then grows up as a communist and eventually takes over soviet Russia.
The primary conflict in the graphic novels is similar to the conflict in every Superman saga, Lex Luther versus Superman. Only in Red Son Superman is the Soviet Union, which in the course of the graphic novel comes to take over every country but the United States and Chile, and Lex Luther eventually comes to represent the United States. The conflict leads to the degradation of the United States till has all but collapsed. This is because massive funding is given to Luther to create his own “superman.” The conflict has a couple of climatic points, in which Superman continually defeats the foes that Luther creates to oppose him. These all include your standard Superman villains, Braniac and Bezzaro included. These small skirmishes are akin to actual battle, and often throughout the graphic novel there is the idea that it is a chess game between Superman and Lex Luther.
These skirmishes come to a head in the final chapter of the graphic novel (that statement almost seems redundant). When Lex Luther ascends to presidency he brings America out of the poverty that it was in and rebuilds it better than before. With the peoples support behind him he finally launches a full attack, with an army of Green Lanterns, the amazons (who Superman has fallen out of favor with after his battle with bat man), and Lex Luther himself. This seems to fail, miserably as it were, but Luther has an ace up his sleeve one sentence that stops Superman and his totalitarian rule.
This graphic novel is proliferated with nuggets of freedom, and the wrongs of totalitarian rule even if it is for the best of the people, but this most important way to understand it is as a conflict, an opposition of ideals that result in the conflict. This is reflected in actual war and the graphic novel Jobnik. It is important that we understand what the conflict does to the people who are not directly involved Jobnik takes a more realistic approach, whereas Red Son gives us the idea that the pawns are unaware of the true motifs of the player. This, to me, seems to be the more accurate picture of war, it is a thing that is about our heads as civilians, and even those directly involved do not fully understand every aspect of what is going on. That leaves everyone in the dark, to a thing so primal in human nature how is so impossible to comprehend and to that end I believe it is that humanity’s own inability to comprehend ourselves and each other that leads to the murky fog of war.
The primary conflict in the graphic novels is similar to the conflict in every Superman saga, Lex Luther versus Superman. Only in Red Son Superman is the Soviet Union, which in the course of the graphic novel comes to take over every country but the United States and Chile, and Lex Luther eventually comes to represent the United States. The conflict leads to the degradation of the United States till has all but collapsed. This is because massive funding is given to Luther to create his own “superman.” The conflict has a couple of climatic points, in which Superman continually defeats the foes that Luther creates to oppose him. These all include your standard Superman villains, Braniac and Bezzaro included. These small skirmishes are akin to actual battle, and often throughout the graphic novel there is the idea that it is a chess game between Superman and Lex Luther.
These skirmishes come to a head in the final chapter of the graphic novel (that statement almost seems redundant). When Lex Luther ascends to presidency he brings America out of the poverty that it was in and rebuilds it better than before. With the peoples support behind him he finally launches a full attack, with an army of Green Lanterns, the amazons (who Superman has fallen out of favor with after his battle with bat man), and Lex Luther himself. This seems to fail, miserably as it were, but Luther has an ace up his sleeve one sentence that stops Superman and his totalitarian rule.
This graphic novel is proliferated with nuggets of freedom, and the wrongs of totalitarian rule even if it is for the best of the people, but this most important way to understand it is as a conflict, an opposition of ideals that result in the conflict. This is reflected in actual war and the graphic novel Jobnik. It is important that we understand what the conflict does to the people who are not directly involved Jobnik takes a more realistic approach, whereas Red Son gives us the idea that the pawns are unaware of the true motifs of the player. This, to me, seems to be the more accurate picture of war, it is a thing that is about our heads as civilians, and even those directly involved do not fully understand every aspect of what is going on. That leaves everyone in the dark, to a thing so primal in human nature how is so impossible to comprehend and to that end I believe it is that humanity’s own inability to comprehend ourselves and each other that leads to the murky fog of war.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
The Rabbi's Cat, part 2
I want to use this blog to discuss The Rabbi’s cat once more, as it is a wealth of information on the human side of Jewish culture. This time thought I want to talk about it as an extended metaphor, for both Jewish myth, and Jewish faith.
Instances of allegory permeate The Rabbi’s Cat on almost every page. There is the symbolism as the parrot as the forbidden fruit, because when the cat eats him he gains the ability to speak and starts having nightmares, when his dreams use to be simple. This turns interestingly though, rather than this knowledge making him shameful and repentant. He continues the same as he did before he ate the bird. It seems to say that either we screwed up by repenting or the cat is truly the one in the wrong, but if the cat is in the wrong why is he shown to be cleverer than the rabbi’s rabbi. Therefore it is more likely that the cat shows us the way we ought to have gone, that the Greek tradition of embracing humanity was the proper way, rather than to hide the more bestial side of the human experience in the darkest recesses of society. This is shown again with the student of the rabbi who has to hide the fact that he goes to a whore house rather than embrace sexual experience in the open, not that they ought to have sex outside in the street more that it shouldn’t be something to repress and keep hidden. The metaphor is continued in the loss of the cat’s speech. This is more of an extension of religious belief the cat wants a miracle so he invokes the name of God, not something to be taken lightly, and his speech is removed as a result, this in a way reminds me of the story of Zachariah who had a vision from God and lost his power of speech until his son was born. Which the reason for speech loss is different there are multiple instances in the Torah where things happen to people because of contact with God, like Moses’ looking older when he came down off the mountain. It’s a trade the cat sacrifices his ability to speak so that his master can keep his job. It seems like a lot of God’s dealing on earth involves a trade of some kind with humanity, which seems silly if God is omnipotent why does he need humanity to do anything?
The cat seems to be a human being which then goes through true religious experience and yet it does not change him. I wish I could say I knew what the author was trying to say through this, but it seems ambiguous at best and vague at worst. To take a stab would be that the author is almost saying the religion is just a comfort tool, if it does not make you enjoy life more than do not do it. That seems to be the closing message of the graphic novel , religious practice and experience don’t have to mean anything, and often don’t mean anything.
Instances of allegory permeate The Rabbi’s Cat on almost every page. There is the symbolism as the parrot as the forbidden fruit, because when the cat eats him he gains the ability to speak and starts having nightmares, when his dreams use to be simple. This turns interestingly though, rather than this knowledge making him shameful and repentant. He continues the same as he did before he ate the bird. It seems to say that either we screwed up by repenting or the cat is truly the one in the wrong, but if the cat is in the wrong why is he shown to be cleverer than the rabbi’s rabbi. Therefore it is more likely that the cat shows us the way we ought to have gone, that the Greek tradition of embracing humanity was the proper way, rather than to hide the more bestial side of the human experience in the darkest recesses of society. This is shown again with the student of the rabbi who has to hide the fact that he goes to a whore house rather than embrace sexual experience in the open, not that they ought to have sex outside in the street more that it shouldn’t be something to repress and keep hidden. The metaphor is continued in the loss of the cat’s speech. This is more of an extension of religious belief the cat wants a miracle so he invokes the name of God, not something to be taken lightly, and his speech is removed as a result, this in a way reminds me of the story of Zachariah who had a vision from God and lost his power of speech until his son was born. Which the reason for speech loss is different there are multiple instances in the Torah where things happen to people because of contact with God, like Moses’ looking older when he came down off the mountain. It’s a trade the cat sacrifices his ability to speak so that his master can keep his job. It seems like a lot of God’s dealing on earth involves a trade of some kind with humanity, which seems silly if God is omnipotent why does he need humanity to do anything?
The cat seems to be a human being which then goes through true religious experience and yet it does not change him. I wish I could say I knew what the author was trying to say through this, but it seems ambiguous at best and vague at worst. To take a stab would be that the author is almost saying the religion is just a comfort tool, if it does not make you enjoy life more than do not do it. That seems to be the closing message of the graphic novel , religious practice and experience don’t have to mean anything, and often don’t mean anything.
The Rabbi's Cat
This week I'd like to talk about The Rabbi's Cat. It is a graphic novel about a cat that belongs to a rabbi and briefly learns to talk. So the book is able to take some licenses with anthropomorphism, and it uses them effectively. I find The Rabbi's Cat interesting because it's a satirical work, in a way. It uses a cat to criticize how people behave when it comes to basic human needs, like sex, as well as serving as a means in which to express doubts about religious belief.
The work is satirical in that it shows society through the eyes of a bluntly honest feline. This is interesting, to me, at least, because it gives an objective view of human society; but, while it's objective in a way, it still primarily relies on being that it's almost considered human in itself. It enjoys all things that are human. It enjoys sex, food, conversation, and attention, which makes the cat seem almost hypocritical because in the graphic novel, he chastises the young Jewish boy for his actions, but when he sees him go to the whorehouse he almost likes him better for it. It makes the cat more interesting because the cat wants people to be open about their sin and vice. It says, "When I want to f*ck, I f*ck." So the cat's only critical of sin and vice when that sin and vice is hidden. The cat thinks when a person does something he ought to be proud of the fact they do it. This comes up in one of the images where the reader sees the cat actually having sex. So the cat serves as a way to show that humanity ought to either fully embrace the fact that humanity needs sin and be open about it or we ought not to do it at all.
The cat is also used as a way to point out conflictions in religion and doubts about the actual letter of the Jewish law. This is first displayed to the reader when the cat eats the parrot and the rabbi chastises the cat for lying and for murder, the rabbi tells him he must be a good Jew, but then refuses to give him a bar mitzvah. This makes the rabbi’s position paradoxical, the cat must be a good Jew, but is not allowed to become a Jewish man. The cat is also used to point out the errors with the rabbi’s rabbi when the rabbi’s rabbi, says the cat cannot have a bar mitzvah, and then the cat convinces him that he is god. The rabbi seems apologetic and humbled by “gods” presence until he finds out the cat is not god and he seems truly angered by this to the point where he says cats are evil things and Jewish people ought to only own dogs. Yet the cat out maneuvers the rabbi’s rabbi in the conversation, which I think is a way for the cat to come off as incredibly clever and to make the rabbi’s rabbi look foolish. This shows an interesting situation were an animal is smarter than a rabbi, which is a way to show that just because one man holds a certain station in life does not mean he is superior or more clever than another. The cat helps give a critique of social and religious practice.
The cat in The Rabbi’s Cat serves as a measure by which we can see the world of the graphic novel through an un filtered lens. This world though crude and vulgar is pure, it is humanity, and the cat is really how humanity ought to be.
The work is satirical in that it shows society through the eyes of a bluntly honest feline. This is interesting, to me, at least, because it gives an objective view of human society; but, while it's objective in a way, it still primarily relies on being that it's almost considered human in itself. It enjoys all things that are human. It enjoys sex, food, conversation, and attention, which makes the cat seem almost hypocritical because in the graphic novel, he chastises the young Jewish boy for his actions, but when he sees him go to the whorehouse he almost likes him better for it. It makes the cat more interesting because the cat wants people to be open about their sin and vice. It says, "When I want to f*ck, I f*ck." So the cat's only critical of sin and vice when that sin and vice is hidden. The cat thinks when a person does something he ought to be proud of the fact they do it. This comes up in one of the images where the reader sees the cat actually having sex. So the cat serves as a way to show that humanity ought to either fully embrace the fact that humanity needs sin and be open about it or we ought not to do it at all.
The cat is also used as a way to point out conflictions in religion and doubts about the actual letter of the Jewish law. This is first displayed to the reader when the cat eats the parrot and the rabbi chastises the cat for lying and for murder, the rabbi tells him he must be a good Jew, but then refuses to give him a bar mitzvah. This makes the rabbi’s position paradoxical, the cat must be a good Jew, but is not allowed to become a Jewish man. The cat is also used to point out the errors with the rabbi’s rabbi when the rabbi’s rabbi, says the cat cannot have a bar mitzvah, and then the cat convinces him that he is god. The rabbi seems apologetic and humbled by “gods” presence until he finds out the cat is not god and he seems truly angered by this to the point where he says cats are evil things and Jewish people ought to only own dogs. Yet the cat out maneuvers the rabbi’s rabbi in the conversation, which I think is a way for the cat to come off as incredibly clever and to make the rabbi’s rabbi look foolish. This shows an interesting situation were an animal is smarter than a rabbi, which is a way to show that just because one man holds a certain station in life does not mean he is superior or more clever than another. The cat helps give a critique of social and religious practice.
The cat in The Rabbi’s Cat serves as a measure by which we can see the world of the graphic novel through an un filtered lens. This world though crude and vulgar is pure, it is humanity, and the cat is really how humanity ought to be.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Maus, Once More from the top!
Here we sit and once more we sit with Maus in our laps and the activity of cats on our minds. Let us talk frankly about Maus today, what I believe its purpose to be and more importantly were it ought to fit in as far a culture is concerned. With this in mind I want to give a quick over view and personal review of Maus. Maus is a twofold story one that is first of a son asking his father to retell his time spent in Nazi Germany and the other story is that of a young man you is trying to understand his place in the world as the son of a holocaust survivor and figure out his own relationship with his father. I personally believe this narrative is just amazing, that's about the only way to describe it, its insightful, and moving and at times funny, which does not seem right for a piece of Holocaust memorial to be, but it is true and the best memorial literature has that dichotomy of tragedy with a splash of humor. That can be seen in some sense with in my other favorite memorial work, The 7th Well by Fred Wander was incredibly serious, but there were these flashes of humor that so strongly Juxtaposed the narrative that they stood out all the more for it. Maus is the same way, to me personally the humor in Maus is limited, but when it does come through it is all the more wonderful for existing.
Stepping aside from the aspect of humor, what ought Maus convey to its reader? What could Maus be distilled down to? Any number of things really, these are Aesop's Fables there is no one moral of the story. But there are themes you can pull at like the strings of a sweater, to unravel the text. First there is the relationship between a survivor and his son, as I pointed out in my first Maus post I think it is the more interesting of the two narratives, but both are excellent. From which we can infer that Art Spiegelman has had a very interesting relationship with his father sense day one and that has shaped who he is as a person. The other narrative has the very obvious themes of trust (or mistrust), fear, and the usefulness to be clever when it means survival. Through the eyes of Spiegelman and his father we receive these message knit into a wonderfully colorful story, though not necessarily the happiest colors in the world.
Maus, where does it belong in the American literary tradition, obviously it can’t be ignored when one talks about its purpose it is clear it belongs on the shelf in the same vain as a great work of art, but ought we put it with our Catch 22 and our Catcher in the Rye or does it belong with V for Vendetta and Watchmen? It is a difficult question to answer because you have to determine the line between the two sets, are they different types of media all together or are they similar enough were they could be shelved in the same way? I want to leave that question hanging, where ought graphic novels fall in our media labels or do they deserve their own label?
Stepping aside from the aspect of humor, what ought Maus convey to its reader? What could Maus be distilled down to? Any number of things really, these are Aesop's Fables there is no one moral of the story. But there are themes you can pull at like the strings of a sweater, to unravel the text. First there is the relationship between a survivor and his son, as I pointed out in my first Maus post I think it is the more interesting of the two narratives, but both are excellent. From which we can infer that Art Spiegelman has had a very interesting relationship with his father sense day one and that has shaped who he is as a person. The other narrative has the very obvious themes of trust (or mistrust), fear, and the usefulness to be clever when it means survival. Through the eyes of Spiegelman and his father we receive these message knit into a wonderfully colorful story, though not necessarily the happiest colors in the world.
Maus, where does it belong in the American literary tradition, obviously it can’t be ignored when one talks about its purpose it is clear it belongs on the shelf in the same vain as a great work of art, but ought we put it with our Catch 22 and our Catcher in the Rye or does it belong with V for Vendetta and Watchmen? It is a difficult question to answer because you have to determine the line between the two sets, are they different types of media all together or are they similar enough were they could be shelved in the same way? I want to leave that question hanging, where ought graphic novels fall in our media labels or do they deserve their own label?
Friday, October 15, 2010
Religious States
Religious states are the topic of this blog. By Religious states I mean country’s with laws that are specifically seeped in religion. I want to talk specifically about Israel to spring board this discussion. Recently Israel’s cabinet approved a draft for a new pledge that would require non-Jewish immigrants to Israel to pledge loyalty to Israel as a government that is specifically Jewish.
This bothers mean, in an age where society marks the Islamic countries as backwards for religious based politics, yet Israel was established to be a place where Jewish people could be safe and yet when they receive their state they almost immediately become expansionist. It is also bothers me that this loyalty pledge is only meant for people who are not Jewish or who do not have Jewish heritage. The New York Times article that I read mention that this was for the Hasidic Jews who are largely non-Zionist.
So what’s so bad about a loyalty pledge, you might ask, I mean after all we do have out pledge of allegiance? Well what so bad is you are promoting blind nationalism. The Pledge of Allegiance was originally instituted as an assimilation tactic, so that the child of immigrants would feel more loyalty to the USA than to their parents’ homeland. It’s a tactic that is deplorable, to require a person to pledge allegiance to a country is to say they must be loyal to it by virtue of living with in it, which does not seem right. A person does not have to be a nationalist to participate in government so why should they have to say a pledge, which means they are inevitably agreeing to risk life and limb for a country that they might not want to even be a part of but lack the means with which to get out.
This particular notion of loyalty oath bothers me because, while I am to some extant a Zionist, it requires the person to agree to Israel as an exclusively Jewish state, or at least its government to be exclusively Jewish. Which leave the everyday Palestinian who is already being crushed under the boot of Israeli occupation, even less likely to receive a voice in Israel. It also means that the only solution to peace talks is a two country system and that would ultimately lead to Israel giving up some of its occupied territory. So not only is this pledge disrespectful of anyone who might want to live in Israel, but is not Jewish, but it also limits the options for peace in the area.
I have been talking like this is already in effect I know, but it has yet to be passed through parliament. I am hoping the parliament will have the greater sense to not pass this loyalty pledge. Just the notion of a loyalty pledge gives me the shivers, and makes me think of a wonderful book Catch 22 by Joseph Heller, but this pledge limits what the non-Jewish immigrant can expect there government to do for them. Namely it limits the scope of progress to be made as well as the rights of others.
This bothers mean, in an age where society marks the Islamic countries as backwards for religious based politics, yet Israel was established to be a place where Jewish people could be safe and yet when they receive their state they almost immediately become expansionist. It is also bothers me that this loyalty pledge is only meant for people who are not Jewish or who do not have Jewish heritage. The New York Times article that I read mention that this was for the Hasidic Jews who are largely non-Zionist.
So what’s so bad about a loyalty pledge, you might ask, I mean after all we do have out pledge of allegiance? Well what so bad is you are promoting blind nationalism. The Pledge of Allegiance was originally instituted as an assimilation tactic, so that the child of immigrants would feel more loyalty to the USA than to their parents’ homeland. It’s a tactic that is deplorable, to require a person to pledge allegiance to a country is to say they must be loyal to it by virtue of living with in it, which does not seem right. A person does not have to be a nationalist to participate in government so why should they have to say a pledge, which means they are inevitably agreeing to risk life and limb for a country that they might not want to even be a part of but lack the means with which to get out.
This particular notion of loyalty oath bothers me because, while I am to some extant a Zionist, it requires the person to agree to Israel as an exclusively Jewish state, or at least its government to be exclusively Jewish. Which leave the everyday Palestinian who is already being crushed under the boot of Israeli occupation, even less likely to receive a voice in Israel. It also means that the only solution to peace talks is a two country system and that would ultimately lead to Israel giving up some of its occupied territory. So not only is this pledge disrespectful of anyone who might want to live in Israel, but is not Jewish, but it also limits the options for peace in the area.
I have been talking like this is already in effect I know, but it has yet to be passed through parliament. I am hoping the parliament will have the greater sense to not pass this loyalty pledge. Just the notion of a loyalty pledge gives me the shivers, and makes me think of a wonderful book Catch 22 by Joseph Heller, but this pledge limits what the non-Jewish immigrant can expect there government to do for them. Namely it limits the scope of progress to be made as well as the rights of others.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Maus...again
This is going to be another post on Maus. In one of my earlier blog posts I talk about art in comics and how it has changed and has been reflected in other mediums, in this post I want to talk specifically on the topic of the art work of Maus and what it does to and for the story. In Maus there are two aspects I want to talk about: the very angular art style and then the extended metaphor in the use of various animals to represent the different factions of people in World War 2.
The angular art style in Maus intrigues me because it exists even when things ought to be round, like the clouds rising out of the chimneys of the gas chambers. Everything in in the art work feels angular, which leads me to wonder if it was specifically for Maus that Art Spiegelman uses this art style or if it is just his normal art style. To use a one case example I looked over “Prisoner on the Hell Planet,” I see some angular aspects of it, but it still looks more like ink block realism then the angular drawings of Maus itself, so I concluded that Maus’ art style is for Maus. To that end then what does the art style represent in the story? The only answer I can think of seems to be that its pointed and angular as a representation of the pointed conflicts throughout the graphic novel, whether it is Art and his father arguing or the conflict between the Nazi’s and the Jewish people. This seems like a weak guess at best to be forth right, but what else could a style used particularly for this piece mean beyond that when everything is about contrast and opposition? With this question wholly unanswered lets address my second observation on the art the animals.
The animals in Maus each represent a different faction in pre and post war Europe, they address the issues of identity, division, and the role that that faction played in the climate of the times. While those are all interesting topic, I choose to ignore them in pursuit of a different question (though I may come back to them in a later blog post, spoiler alert), why use animals at all? I think this is the largest question that looms over all these other themes. What interests me the most is that these animals aren’t animals with human characteristics, but rather humans with animal characteristics. It is like inverting an Aesop’s Fable. The reason I think Spiegelman does this is so that he may turn it into a sort of bed time story with a moral at the end, but that leads into a cascade of other questions, such as what is the moral? Why doesn’t anyone in the story appear to grow or change? In all I think that the animals allow Spiegelman to label the good and the bad, but even that does not work to its full effect because we see mice betray mice and pigs help mice, the lines are vague even while the metaphor of the animals stands concrete. It is a conflicting ambiguity one that bothers me to know end, is this ambiguity a direct addressing to the concept that the Nazi’s had of humanity being separated so definitely that we were different species, but if he was trying to address that claim why make his wife a mouse in the end shouldn’t she be a frog because she is French and then she could represent that the “races” could mix? Spielgelman seems to mix his metaphor with the potent spices of ambiguity and social critique, but all that comes out of the pot is an ambiguous symbol, a symbol unable to be deciphered is useless. So we must give it a label but to do that eliminates everything else it could be so how does it get labeled? I do not know.
The angular art style in Maus intrigues me because it exists even when things ought to be round, like the clouds rising out of the chimneys of the gas chambers. Everything in in the art work feels angular, which leads me to wonder if it was specifically for Maus that Art Spiegelman uses this art style or if it is just his normal art style. To use a one case example I looked over “Prisoner on the Hell Planet,” I see some angular aspects of it, but it still looks more like ink block realism then the angular drawings of Maus itself, so I concluded that Maus’ art style is for Maus. To that end then what does the art style represent in the story? The only answer I can think of seems to be that its pointed and angular as a representation of the pointed conflicts throughout the graphic novel, whether it is Art and his father arguing or the conflict between the Nazi’s and the Jewish people. This seems like a weak guess at best to be forth right, but what else could a style used particularly for this piece mean beyond that when everything is about contrast and opposition? With this question wholly unanswered lets address my second observation on the art the animals.
The animals in Maus each represent a different faction in pre and post war Europe, they address the issues of identity, division, and the role that that faction played in the climate of the times. While those are all interesting topic, I choose to ignore them in pursuit of a different question (though I may come back to them in a later blog post, spoiler alert), why use animals at all? I think this is the largest question that looms over all these other themes. What interests me the most is that these animals aren’t animals with human characteristics, but rather humans with animal characteristics. It is like inverting an Aesop’s Fable. The reason I think Spiegelman does this is so that he may turn it into a sort of bed time story with a moral at the end, but that leads into a cascade of other questions, such as what is the moral? Why doesn’t anyone in the story appear to grow or change? In all I think that the animals allow Spiegelman to label the good and the bad, but even that does not work to its full effect because we see mice betray mice and pigs help mice, the lines are vague even while the metaphor of the animals stands concrete. It is a conflicting ambiguity one that bothers me to know end, is this ambiguity a direct addressing to the concept that the Nazi’s had of humanity being separated so definitely that we were different species, but if he was trying to address that claim why make his wife a mouse in the end shouldn’t she be a frog because she is French and then she could represent that the “races” could mix? Spielgelman seems to mix his metaphor with the potent spices of ambiguity and social critique, but all that comes out of the pot is an ambiguous symbol, a symbol unable to be deciphered is useless. So we must give it a label but to do that eliminates everything else it could be so how does it get labeled? I do not know.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Maus
This blog will be dedicated to Maus volume one. This graphic novel is interesting for me because it is about holocaust memory and about the relationship between a holocaust survivor and his son. Of those two things I have to say the interactions of Art Spiegelman with his father is the more interesting of the two sides of this tale. This is interesting to me because the relationship between Spiegelman and his father is tumultuous at best.
This can be broken down in to a couple different attitudes that Art has towards his father. His attitudes seems to be split between contempt for his father’s miserliness and awe at what his father went through during World War 2.
The contempt for his father is interesting to me because it shows that Spiegelman really hasn’t grown out of the teenage angst phase and it’s also an interesting reaction to how his father raised him. This is shown by the prologue in which Spiegelman get ditched by his friends and his father’s reaction is to say that you can only find out who your friends really are when you are all locked in a room starving. This is definitely an unusual approach to parenting to say the least, but I think it also contributes to the way Art Spielgelman behaves when his father throws out his coat and then replace it; Spielgelman is angered with his father, because he believes his father is saying that Spielgelman’s stuff, his life isn’t good enough for his father. This coupled with the suicide of his mother leads Spielgman to be trapped in this state of adolescences with no visible way out. This is an interesting insight into him psychologically, and really he all but admits the fact that he is stuck in his development in his comic “Prisoner on the Hell Planet” this is interesting because it shows he has a realization that he is trapped, but his actions with his father make it seem as if he isn’t even trying to move on in his life. An interesting contrast to this is the reverence he shows for his father when he is telling the tale of how he made it through World War 2.
The respect he has for his father’s struggles is most obvious in his persistence to hear his father retell the story of what happened to him, but also is obvious in the panels that cut back to the present day. Whenever Art visits his father he is always bothering him to tell more of his story, even when his father wants to do other things and just spend time with his son all we see is Art constantly bothering his father to hear more of the story. Then once he is able to convince his father to tell his story it goes on for 5 or 6 pages and cuts back to present day and in more than one case we see Art sitting at his father’s feet like a child listening to a bed time story. Arts adoration for his father’s struggle is apparent in the work on Maus volume one.
This can be broken down in to a couple different attitudes that Art has towards his father. His attitudes seems to be split between contempt for his father’s miserliness and awe at what his father went through during World War 2.
The contempt for his father is interesting to me because it shows that Spiegelman really hasn’t grown out of the teenage angst phase and it’s also an interesting reaction to how his father raised him. This is shown by the prologue in which Spiegelman get ditched by his friends and his father’s reaction is to say that you can only find out who your friends really are when you are all locked in a room starving. This is definitely an unusual approach to parenting to say the least, but I think it also contributes to the way Art Spielgelman behaves when his father throws out his coat and then replace it; Spielgelman is angered with his father, because he believes his father is saying that Spielgelman’s stuff, his life isn’t good enough for his father. This coupled with the suicide of his mother leads Spielgman to be trapped in this state of adolescences with no visible way out. This is an interesting insight into him psychologically, and really he all but admits the fact that he is stuck in his development in his comic “Prisoner on the Hell Planet” this is interesting because it shows he has a realization that he is trapped, but his actions with his father make it seem as if he isn’t even trying to move on in his life. An interesting contrast to this is the reverence he shows for his father when he is telling the tale of how he made it through World War 2.
The respect he has for his father’s struggles is most obvious in his persistence to hear his father retell the story of what happened to him, but also is obvious in the panels that cut back to the present day. Whenever Art visits his father he is always bothering him to tell more of his story, even when his father wants to do other things and just spend time with his son all we see is Art constantly bothering his father to hear more of the story. Then once he is able to convince his father to tell his story it goes on for 5 or 6 pages and cuts back to present day and in more than one case we see Art sitting at his father’s feet like a child listening to a bed time story. Arts adoration for his father’s struggle is apparent in the work on Maus volume one.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
The Golem
In this post I want to talk about one of my favorite aspects of Jewish mythology, the golem. Its a creation myth, but rather then a myth of a god creating humans, it is humans creating protectors, of clay. I what to focus on a few ideas first the idea of the protector in any mythology, then the idea of creation from clay or some from of earth present in other mythologies, and finally I want to talk about the golem in modern setting.
The idea of protectors, totems that help societies of peoples stay safe, for the Jewish there is the golem, for the medieval Christian's it was gargoyles, and to the Babylonians it was the lamassu. Fear is an emotion everyone share so even a made up sense of safety is comforting. The mythology around the golem is that it will protect the Jewish people from people who wish to harm them or get rid of them, and given the history of the persecution of the Jewish people its an understandable fear to have. The medieval Christians had fears of a different kind they had the fear of the world, quiet literally anything that wasn't explained by the church was something to be feared. The gargoyles were on the gothic cathedrals to protect them from evil spirits. The Babylonians believe that the lamassu would protect them from invading forces an thus they were put at the gates of cities to protect them from outside forces. Then there are the creation myths tied in with golem.
Mutiple creations myths involve the use of some form of earth, from the Judeo Christian creation myth, and Grecian creation myths, as well as the golem itself. The Judeo Christian creation myth is that God created the first man out of the dust of the ground and formed him in to the current shape of humanity. Then there are multiple creation myths in Greek mythology, one of which is that a man who threw rocks to the ground and these rocks sprung up as men to be part of his country. The golem itself is made of clay and then given life. The importance of all these being linked is that it results in an interesting connection to humanity and earth, in a sort of circle of life way, it explains our burial practices and out belief systems.
Now lets talk about the golem, like I said one of my favorite Jewish myths, if not one of my favorite myths period. The golem interests me because it is a creation meant for protection but also because it give a man the ability to be a god to give life to an object in a more real way then one could accomplish in any other way. What role does the golem play in the modern setting you might ask and the answer to that would be a favorite past time of mine, D&D. In D&D there are multiple types of golems not just clay, but iron and stone and golems made of flesh. I think these are interesting because the myth never states that a golem must be made of clay and thus anything formed into the shape of a human can be animated with a spell and serve as a protector. However they are always automatons, creatures without thoughts or feelings they serve a purpose in obeying their masters. Which really limits and confuses can they be seen as something that needs caring from a creator or can they be wiped away as marker on a white board and I think that leaves an interesting place when connected to the creation myths, does that mean man is mindless? Does it mean that we can be destroyed pointlessly and with out a 2nd thought?
The idea of protectors, totems that help societies of peoples stay safe, for the Jewish there is the golem, for the medieval Christian's it was gargoyles, and to the Babylonians it was the lamassu. Fear is an emotion everyone share so even a made up sense of safety is comforting. The mythology around the golem is that it will protect the Jewish people from people who wish to harm them or get rid of them, and given the history of the persecution of the Jewish people its an understandable fear to have. The medieval Christians had fears of a different kind they had the fear of the world, quiet literally anything that wasn't explained by the church was something to be feared. The gargoyles were on the gothic cathedrals to protect them from evil spirits. The Babylonians believe that the lamassu would protect them from invading forces an thus they were put at the gates of cities to protect them from outside forces. Then there are the creation myths tied in with golem.
Mutiple creations myths involve the use of some form of earth, from the Judeo Christian creation myth, and Grecian creation myths, as well as the golem itself. The Judeo Christian creation myth is that God created the first man out of the dust of the ground and formed him in to the current shape of humanity. Then there are multiple creation myths in Greek mythology, one of which is that a man who threw rocks to the ground and these rocks sprung up as men to be part of his country. The golem itself is made of clay and then given life. The importance of all these being linked is that it results in an interesting connection to humanity and earth, in a sort of circle of life way, it explains our burial practices and out belief systems.
Now lets talk about the golem, like I said one of my favorite Jewish myths, if not one of my favorite myths period. The golem interests me because it is a creation meant for protection but also because it give a man the ability to be a god to give life to an object in a more real way then one could accomplish in any other way. What role does the golem play in the modern setting you might ask and the answer to that would be a favorite past time of mine, D&D. In D&D there are multiple types of golems not just clay, but iron and stone and golems made of flesh. I think these are interesting because the myth never states that a golem must be made of clay and thus anything formed into the shape of a human can be animated with a spell and serve as a protector. However they are always automatons, creatures without thoughts or feelings they serve a purpose in obeying their masters. Which really limits and confuses can they be seen as something that needs caring from a creator or can they be wiped away as marker on a white board and I think that leaves an interesting place when connected to the creation myths, does that mean man is mindless? Does it mean that we can be destroyed pointlessly and with out a 2nd thought?
History Of Comics
In my last post I talked about the art change in comics and how it has affected other types of media. This time I would like to talk more about the actual history of comics. Particularly the golden age.
Lets start with what the golden age is. Its the age when comics first started up until about the 1960's. The early 1930's is when the comic book originated and that was originally a comic book had multiple different comic strips. This was so there was something for everyone. The first superhero comic and also the first comic to have its own serialized book was superman. However I don't want to spend this entire post telling you the story of comics books I actually want to comment on my thoughts on the old heros and the comic book censorship that took place in the 50's.
First my thoughts on the old heros the ones that have existed sense the dawn of comics, superman, batman, the entire lot of them. They were the heros that captured the imagination of the children of the great depression and of world war 2. These heros were something fantastic, but what about in our day and age how do they old up? Here is what I think, I think some have held up better then other Superman for instance is to over powered in my opinion he has one flaw an incredibly rare and expensive stone, it would be like a human only being able to die by swallowing plutonium. Then there is batman and this will show my personal bias because he is my favorite hero. Batman transcends time lines really because he could really be placed in any time with cutting edge weaponry and still fit, and he still mortal, with the right budget anyone could do it. Then there is Captain America, I think this hero is incredibly outdated, he is a character that played heavily on the nationalism of World War 2. Which in the modern day and age makes him appear like a rather flat character. Then I want to talk on the topic of the censorship panels.
Censorship, to me it is one of the ugliest words in the English language. It means repression of thoughts and ideas that could be important to a particular sector of the public, ideas that could shape and change the world. The foolishness of censorship really leads to deliberate ignorance, and that is why the censorship panels of comics and all censorship in general is completely foolish to me. The worst part was the suppression of art. Art, in my opinion, is one of the best mediums for expressing ideas, so when censorship represses art it is particularly heinous. Even if one believes that comics are the lowest form of art they have to see that comics do serve a purpose they can enlighten and educate a sector of the population that would normally not be exposed to these ideas even if they are radical, or stupid they serve a purpose.
Lets start with what the golden age is. Its the age when comics first started up until about the 1960's. The early 1930's is when the comic book originated and that was originally a comic book had multiple different comic strips. This was so there was something for everyone. The first superhero comic and also the first comic to have its own serialized book was superman. However I don't want to spend this entire post telling you the story of comics books I actually want to comment on my thoughts on the old heros and the comic book censorship that took place in the 50's.
First my thoughts on the old heros the ones that have existed sense the dawn of comics, superman, batman, the entire lot of them. They were the heros that captured the imagination of the children of the great depression and of world war 2. These heros were something fantastic, but what about in our day and age how do they old up? Here is what I think, I think some have held up better then other Superman for instance is to over powered in my opinion he has one flaw an incredibly rare and expensive stone, it would be like a human only being able to die by swallowing plutonium. Then there is batman and this will show my personal bias because he is my favorite hero. Batman transcends time lines really because he could really be placed in any time with cutting edge weaponry and still fit, and he still mortal, with the right budget anyone could do it. Then there is Captain America, I think this hero is incredibly outdated, he is a character that played heavily on the nationalism of World War 2. Which in the modern day and age makes him appear like a rather flat character. Then I want to talk on the topic of the censorship panels.
Censorship, to me it is one of the ugliest words in the English language. It means repression of thoughts and ideas that could be important to a particular sector of the public, ideas that could shape and change the world. The foolishness of censorship really leads to deliberate ignorance, and that is why the censorship panels of comics and all censorship in general is completely foolish to me. The worst part was the suppression of art. Art, in my opinion, is one of the best mediums for expressing ideas, so when censorship represses art it is particularly heinous. Even if one believes that comics are the lowest form of art they have to see that comics do serve a purpose they can enlighten and educate a sector of the population that would normally not be exposed to these ideas even if they are radical, or stupid they serve a purpose.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Comic Art
In this post I want to talk more about the artistic style of comic and graphic novels rather than the content of a particular graphic novel or comic. Frist I will examine how the art style has grown and then how the art is applied in modern setting not just to comics, but to other media as well.
I want to start out by discussing panels. They are the framework of any story quite literally. A panel is the picture where something happens in a comic. They also produce the flow in a comic, the way they are arranged directs the reader’s eyes to follow the story a certain ways, or in a full page panel allow the reader to explore the page as they see fit. This also allows for a character to exist a panel, meaning they break the border this means either they are usually being more dramatic, grabbing the reader’s attention by breaking the strait lines, or it is done to break the fourth wall. The panels can also be used to manipulate they speed at which the reader reads, a longer panel will slow the reader down which a bunch of quick short small panels will speed up the reader. So panels are an effective frame work for the art to take place, but what about the art style within the panels?
Well the art style has changed quite a bit over the years, from stippling in the 50’s to the heavy inking of the grittier dramas in conjunction with cell shading, and know in the era of more webcomics we she an mixture of a flash and anime mix as well as a large number of artistic styles. The art of comics has evolved along with comics as a medium, as the writing got more sophisticated so does the art as a way to tell the story. Stippling was a bright colorful medium, which made even the darkest melodramas seem to play across a clown’s face paint. Then as comics grew into a more adult medium a new art style grew as well darker, heavier, and scarier environments were created, like in the stories of the “darkest night” character arc or the graphic novels of V for Vendetta and Watchmen. So comics began to be taken more seriously as an artistic medium. Then as the internet grew as a place for media to flourish, webcomics began to pop up these usually one page weekly comics have become a mixture of many different art styles, for a great display of many artistic style I would recommend the Gutters ( http://www.the-gutters.com/ ) it is a funny series.
The art style of comics has translated into other media as they become a more popularized medium. This is seen in super hero movies as well as movies like Scott Pilgrim which actually barrow quite heavily from comics and video games. Then video games themselves the new game Halo Reach for instance has a special effect in the forge mode that turns the entire map into a heavy black and white contrast which is called pen and ink, which makes me think of graphic novels. Comics as an artistic medium as crossed borders, and not just the ones around panels, to create an aristic approach to all media.
I want to start out by discussing panels. They are the framework of any story quite literally. A panel is the picture where something happens in a comic. They also produce the flow in a comic, the way they are arranged directs the reader’s eyes to follow the story a certain ways, or in a full page panel allow the reader to explore the page as they see fit. This also allows for a character to exist a panel, meaning they break the border this means either they are usually being more dramatic, grabbing the reader’s attention by breaking the strait lines, or it is done to break the fourth wall. The panels can also be used to manipulate they speed at which the reader reads, a longer panel will slow the reader down which a bunch of quick short small panels will speed up the reader. So panels are an effective frame work for the art to take place, but what about the art style within the panels?
Well the art style has changed quite a bit over the years, from stippling in the 50’s to the heavy inking of the grittier dramas in conjunction with cell shading, and know in the era of more webcomics we she an mixture of a flash and anime mix as well as a large number of artistic styles. The art of comics has evolved along with comics as a medium, as the writing got more sophisticated so does the art as a way to tell the story. Stippling was a bright colorful medium, which made even the darkest melodramas seem to play across a clown’s face paint. Then as comics grew into a more adult medium a new art style grew as well darker, heavier, and scarier environments were created, like in the stories of the “darkest night” character arc or the graphic novels of V for Vendetta and Watchmen. So comics began to be taken more seriously as an artistic medium. Then as the internet grew as a place for media to flourish, webcomics began to pop up these usually one page weekly comics have become a mixture of many different art styles, for a great display of many artistic style I would recommend the Gutters ( http://www.the-gutters.com/ ) it is a funny series.
The art style of comics has translated into other media as they become a more popularized medium. This is seen in super hero movies as well as movies like Scott Pilgrim which actually barrow quite heavily from comics and video games. Then video games themselves the new game Halo Reach for instance has a special effect in the forge mode that turns the entire map into a heavy black and white contrast which is called pen and ink, which makes me think of graphic novels. Comics as an artistic medium as crossed borders, and not just the ones around panels, to create an aristic approach to all media.
A contract with God
To discuss Will Eisner's "A Contract with God" is to discuss not only the Jewish relationship with God but also the ideas of sexuality, and, suffering. Cookalein was my personal favorite so I'm going to address these themes with respect to that story. While the most potent theme in Cookalein is sexuality, I will start by addressing the idea of suffering.
In Cookalein the most apparent suffering is loneliness, whether it is the loneliness of Goldie and Benny searching for lovers, and money, or Sam’s wife being cheated on. Loneliness is constant theme in the story, Goldie talks about spending all her savings to buy two dresses just to find a husband. This In my option speaks of desperation, she’s willing to spend all her money in order to obtain a husband. Then Sam’s wife appears to be lonely because she spends all day doing house work, and the only reason she will not get a divorce from Sam is because they have children. Then at the end of the story she tells Willie he has to be the man of the house because his father is going to be around less often. Benny appears lonely not only in the extremes he goes to attract a mate, but also that he wants to have sex so badly he rapes Goldie, and while I know this is a heinous and villainous act to do, it also speaks of a desperation for a basic human need that I think Benny has. The other person who seems to be lonely is Maralyn, her husband mention how she is back to her old tricks when she is sleeping with Willie, which implies she is in the habit of sleeping around. This could mean she is either an overly sexualized woman or she is lonely and looking for attention, or both are possible. Eisner focuses heavily on the idea of loneliness but not nearly as much as he does on the role of sexuality in the lives of his characters.
Almost every one of the characters Eisner presents to the reader in Cookalein has some sort of experience with sexuality over the course of the story. Sam has sex with his mistress and tries to have sex with his wife but she rejects him because she knows that he is sleeping around. Maralyn has sex with both Willie and her husband. Benny rapes Goldie, and the two young children watch. Each of these characters reacts to the sex differently as well. Sam enjoys the sex with his mistress, but the sex with his wife she more like it is out of obligation then out of love, or even lust which seems like a larger driving force behind sex in this story. This leads me to both Maralyn and Benny, who both seem motivated by lust to seek out sexual encounters. Then the children witness the rape of Goldie but in their innocence that just what adults do when they are being “naughty” so they are exposed to sexuality at a young age and it leads to them already having an interesting exposure to sex.
In Cookalein the most apparent suffering is loneliness, whether it is the loneliness of Goldie and Benny searching for lovers, and money, or Sam’s wife being cheated on. Loneliness is constant theme in the story, Goldie talks about spending all her savings to buy two dresses just to find a husband. This In my option speaks of desperation, she’s willing to spend all her money in order to obtain a husband. Then Sam’s wife appears to be lonely because she spends all day doing house work, and the only reason she will not get a divorce from Sam is because they have children. Then at the end of the story she tells Willie he has to be the man of the house because his father is going to be around less often. Benny appears lonely not only in the extremes he goes to attract a mate, but also that he wants to have sex so badly he rapes Goldie, and while I know this is a heinous and villainous act to do, it also speaks of a desperation for a basic human need that I think Benny has. The other person who seems to be lonely is Maralyn, her husband mention how she is back to her old tricks when she is sleeping with Willie, which implies she is in the habit of sleeping around. This could mean she is either an overly sexualized woman or she is lonely and looking for attention, or both are possible. Eisner focuses heavily on the idea of loneliness but not nearly as much as he does on the role of sexuality in the lives of his characters.
Almost every one of the characters Eisner presents to the reader in Cookalein has some sort of experience with sexuality over the course of the story. Sam has sex with his mistress and tries to have sex with his wife but she rejects him because she knows that he is sleeping around. Maralyn has sex with both Willie and her husband. Benny rapes Goldie, and the two young children watch. Each of these characters reacts to the sex differently as well. Sam enjoys the sex with his mistress, but the sex with his wife she more like it is out of obligation then out of love, or even lust which seems like a larger driving force behind sex in this story. This leads me to both Maralyn and Benny, who both seem motivated by lust to seek out sexual encounters. Then the children witness the rape of Goldie but in their innocence that just what adults do when they are being “naughty” so they are exposed to sexuality at a young age and it leads to them already having an interesting exposure to sex.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)