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.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)