Megillat Esther

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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?