1.
Speigelman's inclusion of the conversation between himself and his wife
at the very beginning is interesting, for a lot of different reasons.
He not only sheds some light on his creative process, but he also raises
some questions on identity and race as well, using his wife's background
as a sort of example. What did you get out of this opening scene? why
does he have his style such that one's identity is completely reflected
in their appearance? What does this say about
how we qualify someone as being part of a race or identity? Have you
ever wondered what animal you would be in Speigelman's world?
2. Art's conversation with
his wife continues in the car ride over to Vladek. Here he provides a
little aside on his relationship with his dead brother and parents, as
well as his connection to the Holocaust. Why do
you think he includes such a personal reflection in the book? How do you
think this connects back to his art style, as well as the story's
general structure? Do you feel like there might be certain parallels
between Art and Vladek?
3. Needless to say, Vladek is
very much a character, both literally and figuratively. We've talked
plenty about who he is and what kind of person he is, and why he is that
kind of person. But now that the book's focus
has started to shift toward Art, we get a better impression of his own
character and actions. With the start of chapter one, as well as chapter
two's introduction, we're getting a great deal of characterization for
Art, a lot of which isn't necessarily positive.
Meanwhile, Vladek's behavior seems less crazy, and more lonely. He seems
friendlier, using phrases such as "darling" when referring to Art and
his wife. At this point in the book, what do you think of Art? With him
as a character in the story as well as the
author, how do you think this influences the book? Do you feel like the
explanation he provides at the start of chapter two is appropriate?
The first part of the intro: the discussion with his wife about their marriage and what not I found quite strange. Saying that since she is french she is a rabbit, and then she converts and a rabbi says now poof you are a mouse seems weird. As readers we know she didn't change in her appearance. Why not leave her a rabbit and give her a Star of David necklace? Later in Maus II Vladek meets a frenchman in the camps and he is not a rabbit. So the Germans are dogs, the Pols are pigs, and everyone else is a mouse? I know Speigelman is trying to tell me something but I am not sure what that is.
ReplyDeleteI view this book as not just an autobiography of Vladek, but also a person biography of Speigelman. If we look at it as such then the observations about his brother he never knew and his parents and how that loss reflected on Art's relationship with his parents then it makes perfect sense to be included. The book is about his father's time in a concentration camp, but it is also about the relationship between father and son, and how these experiences have effected their understanding of each other.
As a non-fiction writer one of the most important things a writer must do is be honest with the truth and that is the truth as how the writer sees it. If Art made himself to be a martyr to his father's brutishness we as readers would question his honesty as the author. Instead we see that Art, is not the dutiful son, but rather a resentful player. When read without Maus I (I originally bought the wrong book), Art is truly horrible, because we don't have the final scene about the diaries to make us understand this love/hate/resentment relationship. Now we understand that there had been a better relationship, and the burning of the diaries caused a rift in that bond.
The opening scene was an interesting one, it plays on how strange it is to portray each other this way. It is important to Art that he is portraying people properly but is finding even his own styling cumbersome. Which is appropriate given the nature of the work being racially stigmatic and polar. There are grey areas within history and this one scene shows those nicely. Some may see this scene as a strange way to start the second book, but I think it was not only appropriate but connecting in a substantial way.
ReplyDeleteI don't honestly think negatively of Art, I like what he did with this second book thus far. It really ties in the emotions attached to those in a new generation. The byzantine conduit of thoughts that one must navigate to understand how to approach the tragedy that was the holocaust. Yes from a third party I can chastise him for treating his father the way he did, but that is as someone dissociated. Art presents himself this way on purpose and it adds to the story, not to say that I doubt it is true to some extent. I think the start of chapter 2 was to put some distance between him and Vladek and to make the reader imagine themselves successful without family there to see it. This was made after 5 years of grieving the loss of his father, the way he views himself I'm sure is in a dark light as most grieving artists do. I am more than confident that it ends on a much lighter note.
Honestly a great few chapters in this tale.
(Hey! You use words like “byzantine” too! Awesome!)
DeleteIt’s interesting to think that our perception of Art is entirely based on information that he provides us. After all, beyond Maus we have no real sense of who Spiegelman is, as a person. The only reason we can pass any judgment on him whatsoever is because he has allowed us to. Have you ever considered if Spiegelman was conscientious of how he portrays himself in his work? I certainly think that at this point in the work, the focus has shifted almost entirely towards Art and Vladek’s relationship, rather than on the events of the Holocaust itself.
Touching on questions one and two:
ReplyDeleteWe actually worked with this piece (or an excerpt) back in an American Literature survey course, and this is one of the things we focused on—Maus in terms of the second generation of Holocaust survivors. Obviously this work and the undertaking of this work by Spiegelman speaks a lot to the Jewish community and this entire generation that has this inherited sense of “guilt” that they kind of have an unspoken responsibility to honor. This is my first time actually reading this section of the book and I am honestly surprised that he has addressed it so directly, because I thought it may have just been a theme that we picked up from the frame narrative of the last chapter.
This sense of inherited guilt I think speaks a lot to the way he chose to frame his narrative. This lineage is engraved our very identity—plain as our faces (or our anthropomorphic manifestation). He seems to carry the sense that he was born a mouse and therefore can take no other form unless he completely masks his face to his true identity (which we actually see in some later parts of the book) yet we know from the opening sequence that the case with his wife was a little more mutable. But I think that’s where it’s important to kind of view this work as being more of a memoir kind of deal rather than a polarizing satire. His choice of animal for person seems something at baseline objective (jew/mouse, german/cat, polish/pig) but where grey area is settled with a subjective judgment (i.e. his own). In the case of the animals I think it may be more illuminating to examine the classification in what it means subjectively to the author, and the way he sees and divides up the world. Speaks a lot to his psyche and struggle—on that note he sees a therapist, but even though he hasn’t personally been through Auschwitz (and perhaps this tape recorder interview is the first time he is actually hearing the full account of his father? Don’t quote me on that, I’m not sure), he chooses to speak specifically to a professional who is not only Jewish but an actual survivor. Obviously this is a huge part of his identity as a second generation and his sense of inherited guilt and the ghost of his dead brother really compels him to “pay it back” in a way.
A cool point for discussion if anyone feels like touching on it is the sense of what is “normal” brought up by this section of the book. There’s the second generation: I think we may be compelled to ask (and I’m not qualified to answer—it’s more of a cultural discussion) does the second generation have a responsibility to the survivors of the Holocaust—their stories, their physical bodies, and their offspring? And more generally, what is the new state of “normalcy” to an entire race emerging from mass trauma? We may think comparatively of world wars. The older generation in the book seems quick to condemn Vladek— assuming a state of normalcy for the survivors. That if a few were able to carry on as normal, it should be expected of the rest.
I think it is very important to consider how the second generation of Holocaust survivors handled their past. In a sense, Maus itself is focused more on this readjustment than the Holocaust itself. As we approach the end of the work, the focus shifts more and more toward Vladek and Art’s relationship. I don’t think there’s any one correct answer to the question of what it means to be a “normal” survivor, just as there’s no real definition of what a “normal” American is. The wide range of reactions that trauma can cause implies that the only unifying characteristic of survivors and their descendants is a recognition, and ultimately, an acceptance of the past.
DeleteI thought that the inclusion of Artie’s wife in the beginning of Maus 2 was important in respect to Artie. We are given very little background in Artie’s life because the story mostly revolves around his father’s history. Arties is more of a frame in the first book. I felt like Artie having to figure out whom his wife would be, animal wise, in the novel was very important. She transitioned into the Jewish religion because of Artie’s father, but the choice for these animals was very well thought out and represents decades of history. These animals represent personally who these characters were and even though Artie’s wife wasn’t Jewish at birth, her switching represents something that would have distanced his father’s experience. Because he, Vladek. was Jewish, he was attacked and treated like nothing and this transition to the religion for Artie’s wife seems both a sensitive subject and a complicated one. These animals represent the people, but it also represents their lengthy histories and their personal treatment throughout history. Vladek was a mouse because the Jewish people were treated like vermin while the Nazis were cats because they were the antagonists of these people. Artie’s wife coming in and transitioning was a bit like putting on a mask. Artie might think that even if she switched to the Jewish religion, she was still lacking that historical connection.
ReplyDeleteArtie never met his brother, but he feels so many strong feelings toward him. He was always told how perfect he was and always felt like he wasn’t good enough. After hearing about his brother through his father’s story, he probably felt like he was able to know something that he never knew. A part of his life that was left in question. Learning about his brother felt perfect in this story because it seemed a bit closer to the character of Artie then the story of his father in the Holocaust. He continuously competes against this perfect son he never knew.
From the start of Maus 2, I feel like we are getting the story through his own eyes. The first was much closer to his father, while the second part put more focus on Artie. Yes, the story continues to venture into his parent’s history, but we are getting much more of Arties personal life now that his father had passed on. He seems much more normal and personally in pain from his parents lives. He had so many issues in the past, and now they all just seem to come bearing down on him after he needed to finish the second part of his story. Artie seems very strong personally in the way that he is willing to give up so much personal information in a book like this. We are seeing a part of his mind that nobody would see otherwise. Him feeling as a child while being questioned by the interviewers for his book, for example.
1) I really have enjoyed the meta quality of Maus II so far. There is a lot more stuff like this first conversation, where Art talks about turning his father's experiences into comic book form. This conversation at the beginning is very interesting, as it's revealed that he draws his French wife as a mouse because she converted to Judaism. On the next couple pages, you see some other non-Jewish Americans being depicted as dogs, different breeds. This kind of animal identification is one of the key defining characteristics of Maus. I don't think that it is Art's personal view that people can be generalized as one specific animal or another, I think the whole concept comes from the Nazi's dehumanization of the “Jewish race.” Depicting Americans as different breeds of dogs is more forgiving- everyone is the same but still with high degrees of variance, unlike the mice and cats, who are all the same.
ReplyDelete2) This conversation about Richieu's photo was extremely personal and very revealing about Art. I think that it is included to show how Art has had to deal with the consequences of the holocaust as well, even though he wasn't included in it. He even goes as far to say that he sometimes wished he had been in Auschwitz, just so that his dad wouldn't have that over him. It's very tragic and it shows that any action is not an isolated incident. His parent's lives during those years had profound impacts on the rest of their and their children's lives, and if Art is going through this struggle then there are surely thousands of others out there who are going through the same trials.
3) It's very interesting to see just how personal Art is willing to get in this book. The way he portrays himself and his father is not very flattering for either of them, but I don't think it's meant to be. As we have discussed before, Vladek is a complicated guy who has to make hard decisions in order to survive. Making those decisions didn't make him a bad person, it just made him a survivor. Unfortunately, those survival tactics he clung onto so hard during the war don't function very well in a modern society. I am reminded of the part when Vladek is in Birkenau and he tells Anja not to rely on any of her friends, because they won't rely on her. This is something that I think that Vladek definitely took home with him, this staunch independent attitude and contempt for outside assistance. This quality also is unfortunately also responsible for instilling a massive amount of guilt in Art.
I agree - Spiegelman seems to be trying to portray his father and himself in the most objective way possible and it's not always flattering to either of them. I really admire the sort of authenticity he writes with in Maus.
DeleteVladek was definitely a survivor during the war. I have been consistently surprised by the way managed to barely get out of circumstances where it seemed like he was up against impossible odds. He always seemed to be able to find a way to survive - with his skills, with his possessions or simply with his charm and ingenuity. I thought it was very interesting that Spiegelman includes the scene with his therapist, where the possibility comes up of Vladek feeling survivor's remorse. I have thought that a few times while reading Maus, because while Vladek was sometimes able to achieve a slightly better or safer alternative for himself, he still had to watch all of the atrocities as he stood apart. One example I'm thinking of is when he is able to procure a job teaching English to the Kapo and was able to get better clothes, food, and work than many of the other prisoners during that time. Even though he tries to help Mandelbaum by doing things like giving him a belt, new shoes and a spoon, Mandelbaum was eventually taken away and killed. I could absolutely see someone feeling guilty over this, even though it wasn’t Vladek’s fault.
I thought the scene where Spiegelman is trying to decide what animal to portray the French as during the war was one of the lighter moments in the story. Especially when Francoise suggests that he depict her as a bunny rabbit and he answers, “Nah, too sweet and gentle. I mean the French in general.” I get the sense that while Spiegelman decided to use an animal metaphor in this story, it doesn’t necessarily reflect his attitudes toward these different races of people. He is trying to present the general roles of populations during the war. It does seem a bit simplistic at times, and certainly people can’t all be lumped together on the basis of race or otherwise, but I think this metaphor works for the story as a whole.
ReplyDeleteJust like the scenes depicting Spiegelman’s relationship with his father, I think the scenes showing his doubts and concerns over making this comic book help present a fuller narrative. By not leaving anything out, I think the story comes across as more honest and objective. These scenes in between Vladek’s reminiscences also give further insight into all of the characters and humanizes the story in general, so that everything being presented feels more personal and relatable.
I am glad that Spiegelman decided to include himself as a character in the story. I don’t think the story would be nearly as effective if the scenes with him in it were taken out. By putting himself in the story, he shows that he is not a perfectly objective narrator - he expresses his own doubts and frustrations as the story goes along. I think this works well with Spiegelman’s style of putting all the information in the story and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions. I like both Vladek and Art and I think the reason for this is that they are both presented as accurately as possible and their characters are really fleshed out.
Have you ever thought about the usage of unreliable narrators in stories? I find that when we are forced to question the motives, perspectives and background of our only source of information on a story, it’s much easier to immersive ourselves in the narrative’s world. We get a sense of the connection that character (and perhaps, by extenstion, the author) has with his reality, and rather than make the story harder to understand, improves our sense of the world presented to us. When it comes to the relationship between Art and his father, Spiegelman does well by including himself as an unreliable narrator.
DeleteIf you enjoy stories where the narrator maintains a warped or otherwise compromised perspective on the events of the story, you might find HP Lovecraft's works quite enjoyable.
I find the conversation int he beginning to be very enlightening, as we see that Spiegelman put a great deal of thought into the characterizations (or animalizations). I do find it strange however that his french wife has somehow transcended her god given race to become a jew, just by having converted her religion. This i think says something about Spiegelmans concept of what the animals represent. Rather than race they seem to represent ideologies, and tend to be generalizations after all. Such as the Pols being pigs, i think this comes form the fact that they were continuing to kill Jews even after the war and Nazism was done/over with (pigs because of their gluttony in this) The nazi's were the cats because they preyed on all others. As for his wife ultimately being a mouse, i think this is Spiegelman's way of accepting and admitting his wife's whole hearted conversion, that she really was a jew, and that being a jew has less to do with curly hair, a big nose, or any physical trait as it deals with the ideological concept of being a jew.
ReplyDeleteI love the little bit of character building done by talking about his relationship to his dead brother, and how his parents' holocaust experience loomed over him as a child. Helping to shape his perceptions and his ideologies as well. Richieu is particualrly poignant, especially in the context of his art style. I think, and i could just be grasping at straws here, but he mentions how his parents kept a picture of Richieu on the wall of their bedroom, and conceived of him a perfect child with which Spiegelman always felt a ghostly rivalry with. This is think leads to his anthropomorphic art style, because he has grown up with this concept of image as character creation. As in his brother Richieu's ghostly presence fills the image of his picture the same way that the holocaust, and Vladek's presence fills the mousy exterior that Art ultimately gives him.
I relate greatly with Art, i understand his struggle of having lost one parent, and regretting having never made much of that relationship, and of valuing the other relationship all the more because of this loss, even if the person to whom the relationship ties you is not of great value. So while i think Art does not have the most commendable traits always, i do sympathize with where he is coming from, after all the losing his mother made him realize how precious and valuable the parent-child relationship can be, thus thrusting him into Vladek, while at the same time Vladek ultimately removed all trace chance of Art getting to know his mother as best as he could, and i would despise him for this as well.
It was definitely interesting that Spiegelman decided after all to portray Francoise as a mouse, like himself. I don't necessarily think it means he was saying that she transcended her race. He may have been trying to portray the significance of her conversion and her acceptance into the Jewish community.
DeleteThe opening scene to me is Art justifying his choices of using animals at all in his book by using this anecdote (fictitious or not.) People get on him a lot about Maus being "racist" which is completely ignorant of the content of the book but most people are just out there in the world to cause problems anyway. I do enjoy the scene regardless since he discusses the issues of labeling a race as an animal but not labeling them as a stereotype. He can't figure out his wife's animal since she's French (if memory serves which it usually doesn't) and she's converted to Judaism to make Vladek happy. She's an exception, or a person that breaks a stereotype. Personally though I've never wondered what animal I am. I ought to be a hamster though to hold up my company name. Plus I'm a weak little comic boy.
ReplyDeleteI think Art includes these personal reflections because the book is about his struggle. It really is an autobiographical story anyway, and as a reader we are curious how this is all affecting our protagonist. That's my interpretation anyway. He mentions that he doesn't think comics could even begin to replicate the reality he wants to express. I'm very glad he was wrong with this statement. But I think he wrote it that way intentionally. He's trying to relate to the stereotype people believe about comics, then he will personally prove himself and us wrong by agreeing with him with the rest of Maus II.As for paralells between Art and his Father, I think that they both seem to feel oddly comfortable with the horrors of the Holocaust and don't understand why this is. They both go about this in different ways though, and have issues stemmed from different events.
Personally at this point in the book I think Art is feeling awful with how he was treating his father as he's recently passed away at this point in real time, so he's softening him up a bit, and making himself feel more like the jerk he sincerely believed himself to be in these situations. I'd be reacting the same way, and would probably write it like that for years after losing a father like Vladek.
I think Spiegelman was trying to explain the difficulties of his metaphor. He was having a difficult time trying to portray the French in a Neutral light, one that wouldn't offend anyone too much. Its kind of funny that Francoise "converted" and went from being portrayed as a frog to a mouse. I don't see Vladek getting any friendlier, he's still set in his old man ways, he's still incredibly cheap, and he's still very annoying. I had a relative like Vladek, and he used to drive us all insane. He didn't change as he got older, he just continued being annoying, however, I'm digressing.
ReplyDeleteVladek hasn't really changed, Artie is just less patient with him. There are such personal stories and reflections in Maus because its a memoir as well as everything we've already mentioned that it is. It's Spiegelman's experience of trying to get his father's and also his own story published. A better question might be is Spiegelman at least slightly happy that Maus I didn't come out until after Vladek had died? His father's story is also his own story, so gripping and personal. How would Vladek respond to it?
1.When the wife talks about how she converted stuck out to me. In its own way, it was her way of proving to Art once again how much she loves him to convert religions. By reconfirming she became a mouse for him was a reassuring and sweet gesture. She “changed” her whole appearance for him.
ReplyDelete2.His personal reflection of the “rival brother, the portrait” shows how it changed his whole perception of his parents. I think that is why he brought it up. Through his entire life, he was compared to that picture hung in their bedroom. At the time, he didn’t want to be driving to his dad’s and it was the one moment he WISHED his brother was there so he could take care of dad instead of himself. But that thought just brought up old emotions that he felt he had to share.
3. Art has strategically chosen which details to share with the reader. He says he tries to be biased through the entire story. So it’s not us to say if he becomes more biased or unbiased. Since it is his book, he can weigh on which ever sides he wants. I feel the most unbiased portions though are when he is telling us his dad’s stories. They are coming straight from another source and Art is the one retelling it. He does have artist license to weigh one side over the other but I think he does a fair job keeping it balanced and fair.
3) I think having Art as our guide through his father's story is one of the key things that makes Maus so powerful. We come to Vladek's story as Art does, as a voyeur, as someone trying to piece together an idea of what an event was like from the rambling testimony of a survivor. He's the lens through which we view the story, and because he is so easy to empathize with, and so well-spoken, he's able to put in to words and pictures many of the things we who did not live through the Holocaust might feel and want to ask when hearing a survivor's story.
ReplyDeleteI find Speigelman's animal/race metaphors very deep and thought provoking. Obviously his choices aren't definitions but it is interesting to think of races as different animals. Later in the chapter someone asked what would Israeli jews be and he said "I don't know... porcupines?" which was funny just because it sort of showed that he wasn't trying to be too particular about it, although that contrasts the conversation he had with his wife. It is also interesting in the context of the question of whether or not Jews are a race, as Art's wife converted to Judaism and is therefore a mouse, however a German is a cat and cannot convert to being a Pole/Pig.
ReplyDeleteThis part of Maus seems to be much more personal to Art. I wouldn't go as far as to say his life is a parallel to Vladek's, but I think he is trying to convey more of how being the child of an Auschwitz survivor has affected him with this sequel.
I have always thought Art was kind of a spoiled brat. He is very dismissive of his father and never wants to help him or think about him. I think (and this is based on nothing but reading this book) he hates Vladek for some reason and probably blames him for his mother's suicide and that is why he tries to ignore him except for this one thing, getting his story about the holocaust- which he does as though he is a journalist not a son. He also says his father always was competing with him and comparing him to Richieu, but that doesn't excuse how mean he can be by leaving his father alone instead of living with him (since in retrospect he died only 2-3 years after the scenes in the book)
The use of animals to portray races was an interesting choice as it seemed that each choice actually assigned some of those elements unto the characters themselves. The Germans being cats, which have a tendency to torture their pray, seemed to add a more sinister vibe as you follow the story of Mice who are scrounging around trying to survive. I don't know if the animal choice was a deliberate critique of the different races but it allowed the scene where everyone turns into humans wearing animals masks that much more powerful.
ReplyDeleteThe car ride between Art and his wife shows the scars that being the offspring of a holocaust survivor causes. Art and Vladek are similar in the sheer stubbornness of the characters. Each are set in their perspectives of each other, and of the other characters. They both refuse to change who they are. The most powerful line in this conversation to me was when Art mentioned how strange it is to have a sibling rivalry with a photo.
The evolution of Art and Vladek through the new perspectives shows many different things. Through Art we see that he has become so disconnected with his father that he cannot stand to be around his behaviors. He tries to avoid him outside of hearing his story. Vladek does seem more sympathetic as a character but to me it seemed like he was trying to revive a dead plant. There has been too many years to completely mend the rift that Vladek's brutishness has created. Anja's suicide only served to drive these two further away.
I’ve always found Spiegelman’s usage of animals somewhat ironic. If one can think of global atrocities in terms of a “take home message,” the take home message of the Holocaust would be to not judge people based on their race. By representing the world of Maus with animals representing distinct races and nationalities, Spiegelman effectively draws attention to the absurdity of such distinctions. The beginning of the book helps emphasize this concept all the more when Art and his wife argue over how to represent a French woman who had converted to Judaism. He breaks down the metaphor, showing how such demarcations in real life are just as flawed.
Delete
ReplyDeleteI believe it’s not only Speigelman who believes identity is completely reflected in their appearance, but almost everyone and anyone, it’s a common thing, and although not the best way, people do try to determine where you are from or what you are by the way you look, talk, dress and by the way you act, but the main focus remains on the way you appear to them. It is hard to determine who qualifies as what race or identity especially nowadays with so many different backgrounds, more ways to travel, it gives people leverage on being so diverse, children as a result of interracial marriages, someone born somewhere, raised somewhere else, those who are multi-lingual, this day in age, it’s hard to classify anyone in just one category, because the majority of the time, they’re not. I really haven’t considered what animal I would be in Speigelman’s world, because I was born in the states, raised in Palestine, where my family is originally from, and I practice Islam, God only knows what animal Speigelman would make me.
It is true when people tell you first impressions are always the most important because that’s what people remember about you initially and almost every time they come into contact with you. Art seemed like a innocent by stander in Maus I, he was just listening to his father, it showed their was a rift between them because of the diaries being burned, but otherwise, we didn’t really have a good look into the person he really was. Now that Art is the author, we see things through his perspective, I’m not sure if it makes the book better, or if it influences it any different, but I do believe it gives us a different take on how we view Vladek. It is an interesting spin.
The scene was defiantly interesting, and a little confusing, but it kind of connects the reader to the artists mind, and how he’s making history and logic work with the way he portrays people.
ReplyDeleteI think of this book as a biography of Vladek, seeing as Vladek didn’t really write it. Plus, as he had said many times to his dad, he would have to edit some stuff out, or put stuff in. But it’s really more than just that, the deeper you look. Through out the boo, Art changes toward his father the more he knows about him. The story is about Vladek’s past, but it’s also about the present relationship between father and son.
Writers have to be as honest as possible, especially when writing someone else’s story. You can tweak something here or there, just as the person telling you this will do, but you must keep the facts out in the open. Which is why it impresses me that Art kept from pairing himself as the good guy, and dutiful son type. He was reluctant, kind of picky, and resentful toward the end of book, due to the journal burning. He lets the reader know there was a rift torn between them, and doesn’t paint it to he all his fathers fault.
I see the light that Speigleman casts upon these characters as very honest. He is trying to show the perfect blend of reminiscing on the past while still growing the father-son relationship in the present. While he goes back and forth throughout Maus it is like a first-person trip into the memory of his life.
ReplyDeleteThis book in my eyes is the biography of their relationship along with the family's history. Obviously one is going to change the perception when they learn things they didn't know about that person. This is a very real situation that every family member goes through because every has made mistakes in their lives.
The honesty that is portrayed in the story has the perfect blend of realness while making you giggle at the fact the main characters are animals. Like I have said in prior posts the play with cats and mice show who is predator and prey in real life events. When asked what kind of animal I think I would be in Maus, I would hope to be a mice. Even though they are the prey, I am not one to cast hate upon any person or culture.
1. The opening chapter of part 2 gave the story yet another level of self-awareness. It put into context the idea that Speigelman wasn't sure of the best way to use his animal metaphors during post-war times or how the metaphors carried through the rest of the story. I think that is why he chose to wear a mask in the next chapter to show that he was humbled, alienated, and confused talking about something so beyond the limits of humanity and from a very remotely involved perspective. Wearing his mask and coping with the success of a story which he admits was created out of anger and confusion Speigelman seems to be finding a new subtle message to add to part two about meaning in family and the significance of one's personal identity against the history of their family. If I were an animal in the Maus' stylistic world, I would likely be some kind of dog, and likely also a mutt, since all Americans seems to be represented in this way in the book. It seems like the allied forces, aside from the french didn't get any special attention with animal identities. This could be for the reason that they weren't actively involved in the main struggle of the story or the racial stigmas being created against each other. In the US and UK the Nazis weren't physically setting foot and there was not opportunity for things to disparate on a complete socio-cultural level.
ReplyDelete2. Art reveals his own inspirations and motivations for the creation of Maus within the story itself. Art wanted to know what his brother would have been and he felt the emptiness that his parents felt from Richieu's absence. This is why the second part was likely dedicated to Richieu as it was a search for Art's identity as well as the lost identity of his brother. The acknowledgement of Richieu living on in Art or as part of Art and the emphasis that Art is the last legacy of his family makes the end of Maus beautiful. Art finally actualizes his place in the story and the cathartic feeling that seeps throughout Maus is turned into one with definitive clarity. Vladek's confusion is lending to Art's clarity and ability accept the legacy that he is living. I don't think Vladek and Art are very much alike at all other than being good people. I think that's why Maus had to be made. It created a therapeutic and communicative bridge that resolved the conflicts surrounding Vladek, Art, and their relationship with the past.
3. Art was trying to revive the source of grief of his family in order to confront its impact on him as well as his father. In doing so, Art encounters a personal crisis of doubt about what he was doing, wondering if it is helping him at all or if it will have any value next to other stories about the Holocaust. He seemed to overcome his doubt when he spoke with his therapist and saw that the connection between all sufferers of the Holocaust, survivors, or surviving children, seems to be their insurmountable sadness when reflecting on it. Art's struggle, his ability to describe it in the context of the comic, and the way he resolves it by finding purpose and identity during the process of helping his father and speaking with him, gives Maus value. It is a way for others more or less removed from the Holocaust to see the impact of the insurmountable sadness. It also provides a provocative perspective about one's place after loss and differences with their close family.
1. The opening chapter of part 2 gave the story yet another level of self-awareness. It put into context the idea that Speigelman wasn't sure of the best way to use his animal metaphors during post-war times or how the metaphors carried through the rest of the story. I think that is why he chose to wear a mask in the next chapter to show that he was humbled, alienated, and confused talking about something so beyond the limits of humanity and from a very remotely involved perspective. Wearing his mask and coping with the success of a story which he admits was created out of anger and confusion Speigelman seems to be finding a new subtle message to add to part two about meaning in family and the significance of one's personal identity against the history of their family. If I were an animal in the Maus' stylistic world, I would likely be some kind of dog, and likely also a mutt, since all Americans seems to be represented in this way in the book. It seems like the allied forces, aside from the french didn't get any special attention with animal identities. This could be for the reason that they weren't actively involved in the main struggle of the story or the racial stigmas being created against each other. In the US and UK the Nazis weren't physically setting foot and there was not opportunity for things to disparate on a complete socio-cultural level.
ReplyDelete2. Art reveals his own inspirations and motivations for the creation of Maus within the story itself. Art wanted to know what his brother would have been and he felt the emptiness that his parents felt from Richieu's absence. This is why the second part was likely dedicated to Richieu as it was a search for Art's identity as well as the lost identity of his brother. The acknowledgement of Richieu living on in Art or as part of Art and the emphasis that Art is the last legacy of his family makes the end of Maus beautiful. Art finally actualizes his place in the story and the cathartic feeling that seeps throughout Maus is turned into one with definitive clarity. Vladek's confusion is lending to Art's clarity and ability accept the legacy that he is living. I don't think Vladek and Art are very much alike at all other than being good people. I think that's why Maus had to be made. It created a therapeutic and communicative bridge that resolved the conflicts surrounding Vladek, Art, and their relationship with the past.
3. Art was trying to revive the source of grief of his family in order to confront its impact on him as well as his father. In doing so, Art encounters a personal crisis of doubt about what he was doing, wondering if it is helping him at all or if it will have any value next to other stories about the Holocaust. He seemed to overcome his doubt when he spoke with his therapist and saw that the connection between all sufferers of the Holocaust, survivors, or surviving children, seems to be their insurmountable sadness when reflecting on it. Art's struggle, his ability to describe it in the context of the comic, and the way he resolves it by finding purpose and identity during the process of helping his father and speaking with him, gives Maus value. It is a way for others more or less removed from the Holocaust to see the impact of the insurmountable sadness. It also provides a provocative perspective about one's place after loss and differences with their close family.