- What did you think of Joyce Brabner's epilogue?
- Would Harvey Pekar have wanted a statue made of himself?
- Why would Pekar's cousin not stand up for his editorial about invasion?
- How effective was JT Waldman at redefining settings through variety of framing?
- In what ways did Waldman's art reflect his own commentary about who Pekar was?
- What was one of the more interesting things you discovered reading this comic?
- Are there any extra thoughts you want to discuss about Pekar, Waldman, or Israel?
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Not The Israel My Parents Promised Me - Part II
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
(I like these kinds of discussion prompts. Stick to the point, good questions, etc. Shame it’s one of our last posts.)
ReplyDelete1-2. As a supplement to our understanding of Pekar himself, I think the epilogue is a valuable addition to the story. While a large part of the story focuses directly on the Palestine-Israeli conflict, it’s all anchored on Pekar’s own life and experiences. It would’ve been easy enough for Pekar to stick completely to the complex and tragic history of the Jewish people, letting Waldman embellish these historical set pieces with each time period’s traditional art style. And yet, like in Maus, the narrative is framed within the daily lives of its author and narrator. We’re right there in Waldman’s car, cruising around Cleveland with him and Harvey, having, if not a good time, then at least a moment. And as we learn more about the average guy that Pekar is, we better appreciate the personal, yet all too relatable relationship between a man and his ancestry’s past. Pekar himself might shy away from the prospect of having his own statue, but his struggle to understand the individual’s place in history is certainly worth recognition.
4-5. In Not the Israel My Parents Promised Me, Pekar gives us a brief, almost cursory snapshot of world history, seen from the perspective of the Jewish community. With this, Waldman provides each historical vignette with the art style relevant to that period in history, giving each “chapter” of Judaism’s history its own unique flavor. On the surface, this acts as a nice way to engage the audience and keep them on their toes. After all, so much of historic literature, both fictional and non, is focused on making the past interesting. But I like to think that beyond holding the audience’s attention, Waldman’s variety of art styles has a purpose that is more central to the book’s theme. Rather than advocate for any one stance or course of action, Pekar’s work emphasizes the convolution inherent in history and global relations. He acknowledges the points on both sides, as well as his own biases and perspectives, and rather than ending the book with some call to action or decisive conclusion, we’re left alone, sitting with Pekar in the middle of the Cleveland library, with his own thoughts articulated only as a blurred line. The rich, engrossing styles of representation Waldman gives us during Pekar’s historical account suggests Harvey’s appreciation of humanity’s achievements from a global perspective, rather than taking any one side. Put bluntly, he’s not in favor of Palestine or Israel; he’s in favor of coexistence.
Not the Israel My Parents Promised Me
ReplyDeleteI really liked the epilogue. It showed his sort of personality leading up to his death and who he was in the real world. The book focused on his life intertwining with history, so this ending was nice in seeing his overall personality outside of the one speaking of history to a friend. I don’t think it was as necessary to see though. For most of the book, Pekar seemed so alone. Seeing him with someone who pretty much understood him was a nice ending to the piece. The ending of him sitting alone on the bottom floor as his friend went off to look for books to work on this graphic novel wouldn’t have been as concrete of an end.
I feel like Pekar would not have wanted any statue of himself. I couldn’t even see him having a gravestone. It didn’t look like he even had one at his funeral in the epilogue. He was the type of man to despise living in the limelight no matter what size especially one of a statue. He had a strong opinion of the actions of the Jewish people and Israel, but being given a statue would have gone too far in his strive for understanding.
I thought the use of framing was perfect in showing location and setting. The story often shifted quickly in setting when looking into history or traveling from one location to the other while continually speaking in the car. The frames ranged from complicated murals to simple curved lines, each representing the even in history being described. The way these scenes were framed, it was made more interesting to look at and gave a nice feel for the period of time.
I really enjoyed hearing about the way he was brought up. His childhood was complex and he desired things that I myself never have. He was drawn to his religious history while I was less interested in things like that. He, even when his mother was less religious, was drawn to learning more and had a passion that felt out of context. I really admire him for that.
1) I've never seen an epilogue or prologue that was actually a comic within a comic! I was kind of geeking out about that fact about how obvious it seems but I've never seen it done before. Fascinating.
ReplyDelete2) No. He had strong viewpoints but wasn't necessarily proud of anything enough to get a statue. He'd have probably seen it as narcissistic.
3) Pekar was defending the enemy. He's just trying to show that family doesn't seem to come first for the Jews.
4) Honestly at first I enjoyed the transitions through art history telling the biblical to modern history but it started to get irrelevant and annoying and hard to read when it reached the modern art era. Probably because modern art to me is irritating anyway (I'm an MFA student I'm allowed to complain about modern art!) But in all seriousness the references to art before was relevant as it told those stories, but in modern art that never happens. Ever. So it became irrelevant and just out of place. It was a good idea at first but petered out.
5) He looked like a grouchy old Jewish man who wanted some young guy to illustrate a comic about him bitching for 200 pages. I think Waldman nailed it.
6+7) I guess final thoughts on the book conclude how everything is biased. Pekar jokes about it himself toward the end. There is nothing you can do to make facts unbiased, and this book just takes a different spin on an already biased story. History itself is biased as the winner of the wars write history. They won't tell you what courage the opposition brought. Humans see everything through a lens of the "us" and the "them". I guess what I'm trying to say is that I found it ironic how biased this book was when it was making a point about how biased history and news have become. A slightly unrelated but amusing comic that comes to mind relating to this idea is Hickman's Nightly News. Check it out!
I think one of the interesting things that I picked up from both the format and content of this piece (which of course is a theme I’ve been hitting on a lot this term) is what I originally called apologetic but what I think is perhaps more accurately dubbed “conversational.” I don’t think at any point that Pekar says that he has everything exactly right, and in a way that is admirable because nobody really does. Rather I think that all he wants to assert is that he has a right to an opinion on the state of affairs, and that he sees shortcomings in the logic of Jewish nationalism that tosses aside things like peace or justice. The piece has a low stakes kind of feel to it—it becomes very highly subjective with the frame of his childhood and the title, and it feels less argumentative (despite literal arguing at points!) because he is talking out his frame of mind with his co-writer. To me, at least, it does feel fair because he showcases every opposition that he comes across. He’s not so much interested in recruiting people on his side, but rather talking about the shortcomings of all sources—even at times his own, with the epilogue and the final argument scene at the library. I criticized earlier that it should have simply been an essay, but his entry about his highly criticized opinion piece really cemented what the comic accomplishes in its medium.
ReplyDelete