Not The Israel My Parents Promised Me Questions.
1. After finishing the entire book what did you feel about the constant changing of panel display? Did it interest you or make you lose interest. What are your thoughts?
2. The Epilogue unravels the story very subtly and gives you a deeper insight as to what Harvey Pekar was really like. Does this drastically change your opinion or does it explain his character?
3. His ego and stubborn mindset are prevalent throughout the book. Do you think that his knowledge and constant obsession has something to do with it?
4. Does JT seem like a more knowledgeable source about Jewish history? And do you think that Harvey looks down on him because of his age?
5. Does the fact that Harvey was drowned with information as a child have something to do with his ability to write? Do you think that his hatred sprouted his passion?
Not the Israel My Parents Promised Me
ReplyDeleteI really love the constant shift in panel display. It kept the story interesting and moving at a fast pace. I love the variation in design that represented the era and location that Pekar was speaking of during his journey though history. I loved how the panel became odd based on his travels. In one scene, Pekar is driving down a street and the panel became one long road showing the buildings and other scenery in complexity.
I feel like I knew Pekar from the very beginning. The funeral scene represented his anger and feeling for his mother. He was pretty aggravated during the event and to me that was his misery. Without that monologue, it would have left me feeling so empty in regards to his character. It needed that unraveling of him emotionally to feel an end to his unrest.
I feel like his obsession has been apart of him since childhood. He always seemed to grasp for answer and a further understanding of everything. He seemed to feel superior to teachers and even his parents.
I feel like JT and Pekar are the same. They are both experienced historians and deserve to have a say in this story. Pekar just seems to have a better hand in understanding this specific history. It’s something he’s thought about for a long time. JT seems to just pull back and enjoy Pekar for the most part it seems. I think that Pekar just loves a listener.
Harvey’s ability to write is definitely because of his upbringing. He’s a quick learner and always has an opinion. His desire to learn a lot from his Jewish history strove him to his passion of writing. I feel like, seeing his mother’s anti-religious stand as being his push to deepen his hand in the Jewish community.
Much like a variegated quilt, history is best appreciated when looking at the individual parts that it is composed of. In the same way, JT Waldman’s steady shifts in art style help capture the variety and vibrancy that world history presents, with the consistent change in representation suggests a reverence for human history and development as a whole, as opposed to focusing on any one group or race’s achievements. Yeah, I liked the constant change in panel display. Obviously, any work that plays with its structure and style too much runs the risk of coming off as disordered and schizophrenic. This was an initial concern I had with One! Hundred! Demons!, but that subsided quickly enough once Barry established her own aesthetic within the confines of the panel. Waldman too helps establish an order to his own creative chaos, with his jumps in style and representation are isolated to Harvey’s own historical recollections.
ReplyDeleteIs it just me, or does it seem like a lot of people in our class dislike Pekar? Perhaps I’m reading into it too much (all but impossible in a 3000 level English class, I know), but I can’t help but detect a certain slant in a lot of our discussion prompts, an implicit suggestion of Harvey’s immaturity or hypocrisy lurking behind every other question mark. I don’t know, I might just be biased from watching his biopic, “American Splendor.” But I like the guy. Sure he’s cranky, contentious, and stubborn; His cantankerousness is a glorious light that shines through all of “Not the Israel My Parents Promised Me.” But that’s exactly what I admire in him. He’s so darn honest about everything, including himself. If we recognize Pekar as an old curmudgeon, it’s because that’s exactly how he wants to be seen. There’s an earnestness inherent in how he portrays himself, and even though I might not jump at the chance to spend an afternoon with the guy, he very much owns an attitude that I can only respect.
1. I have to say that the long flowing script over two pages is difficult not to want to skip after more frame style comics. Page 158-159 are particularly difficult to focus on.
ReplyDelete2. The epilog didn't really explain much to me. How can you be "proudly Jewish," and yet despise everything about your "Jewishness?"
I am not sure what I think about the book as a total. Harvey is totally unlikeable, and even with the spouting of history, it is the history we have been taught in World History with a US influence. Perhaps this is my own bias, but I don't think anyone can truly appreciate another culture unless one experiences it first hand. Harvey could not appreciate the European Jew's point of view because he had never lived it. They have been shoved around all over the map for over 2000 years, much in the way that the Native American was shoved around their own country then forced onto reservations to starve.
On second thought the maze is perfect to sum up the idea's of this entire book. Endless and unsolvable.
The constant changing of panel display did not work for me. I was thinking the purpose was actually to make the reader more interested in the story by shaking things up, but it really just made me feel like the story I was getting into was ending and something else was beginning.
ReplyDeleteThe epilogue didn't drastically change my opinion, it didn't really show a different Harvey than the rest of the book. He just seems like an unsentimental guy, and yes egotistical and stubborn. It seems interesting to me that he was so obsessed with this controversial topic when his stance on it would allow him to ignore it. It isn't like he was defending Israel and constantly under attack, but he was the one attacking Israel, and he probably didn't need to do that. He does seem like a cantankerous curmudgeon, but I don't think that reflects on the validity of his argument.
I think the panel variation was something that really made this text work, considering the simplicity of the narrative. Really, it's a straight up narration recounting quickly summarized cultural historical accounts with very few scenes with dialogue to break it up. This helped the pacing, and gave me a sense that time was actually moving as opposed to standing stagnant for hours. It also helps orient the reader with time and place.
ReplyDeleteI talked before about my resistance to this work being a graphic novel in the first place when the narrative feels like an afterthought simply to serve the argument. Still, the style of the panels makes it much more engaging and harder to intellectually detach from what is being talked about. For some spots, too, I'm sure it's more emotionally engaging. It's curious to, to see this sort of poising of stagnancy against movement. I think as a character, Pekar is "stuck" in the same way that the Israeli conflict is stuck, yet both are sort of driving around in circles. It's like futile movement. Arguments with no resolutions. It was a creative juxtaposition and parallel between those elements.