Let's just get down to the knitty-gritty, everyone is hitting that end of term wall.
1) Harvey Pekar spends a lot of time explaining the Palestine-Israel conflict/war and how he became less enthused with the idea of Jewish Nationalism. Why do you think he barely spoke about the Camp David Accord? For those who are not in the know, the Camp David Accord was where Egypt and Israel signed their peace agreement. Does Pekar sound like he's missing some historically important information or does he sound like a well informed person?
2) Harvey's experiences with the consulate sound terrible. Do you think that Harvey was trying to use the newly formed Israeli state to escape his own problems or did he legitimately think that he could do well? I felt like he was trying to escape because he wasn't doing well and he had been kicked out of the military and he wasn't keeping a steady job. Does Harvey seem jaded? Does the more realistic artwork make him look more grumpy and angry?
3) And last one: The epilogue is Harvey's wife's view of meeting his family at his mother's funeral and his own funeral. Do you think that Harvey and his wife were more cynical about the amount of money given to Israel? Do you think that their opinions on the funeral, the funny over-zealous grievers, and the Rabbi show an accurate portrayal of these people?
1) Well there's always going to be something you're leaving out in a story when you tell it. That's just how things become biased, and ironically Pekar touches on the idea of himself being biased against Isreal when his relative bashes his ideas in print. He says everything is biased, and he's right. So when some things are left out he must've found them unimportant to telling his side of the story. Was he intentionally hiding information to make his cause seem more legitimate? I don't think so. But it's possible. I wouldn't really put it past him.
ReplyDelete2) I agree. It sounded to me like the guy who flunks out of college and blames the college for his own failure. I think it's his personality that just keeps him acting like the voice of reason, or like he's the only one who knows better, which helps to inform his viewpoints on pretty much everything Israel related in this book. In terms of the artwork, I totally agree the art makes him just appear to be a grouchy old Jewish man bitching about Israel, but in the end that's exactly what's happening.
3) Through the little we saw of his wife who funnily wasn't mentioned in the main story (unless briefly off panel and I missed it) I think she just seems to be mirroring Harvey's opinions and not forming them herself. Granted tha's based on the very little knowledge I gathered of her. But I'm coming to this conclusion based on how she analyzed the people at those funerals as well as how she related to Pekar in the few panels they existed together.
While Pekar’s omission of this event seems disconcerting, generally speaking I don’t find it has too much of an impact on my understanding or opinion of Not the Israel My Parents Promised Me. Given how much larger a scale Pekar looks at in his work, the presence or absence of a specifc event in Jewish history is synonymous with the presence or absence of another drop in the bucket. Pekar’s work isn’t trying to advocate either stance on the issue; he’s trying to acknowledge the issue’s inherent complexity, and to dismiss the mindset that the solution to the problem is in any way straightforward. Pekar readily admits his lack of authority on the issue, so when we’re presented with so much exhaustive information on the history of Israel, why sweat it?
ReplyDeleteThe epilogue sets itself apart from the rest of the work as a more personal and, let’s face it, opinionated piece. Rather than look at the situation with an eye for common ground, Brabner gives voice to her and Pekar’s feelings of alienation from his family and, by extension, community. While it’s easy enough to agree or disagree with their feelings toward the event, I found it interesting that their moderate stance on the Palestine-Israel conflict still created feelings of distance between them. I suppose it makes sense. Not choosing one side or the other is still a choice.
Pekar's focus on the Palestine-Israel conflict is natural as it is the central moment of Israel in his life time. Leaving out the Camp David Accord may have been a natural decision as peace treaties would reach varies stages and fall apart later. A peace treaty that was fully formed also did little to stop the constant conflict that Israel faced. Constant war and bloodshed. The story that Pekar was telling at the time was how he lost his faith as a Zionist. This would mean that details would be left out. If Pekar were to mention every event in detail or in passing about Israel or Jewish history this book would be a lot longer and completely different. The idea that missing information makes someone uninformed is a weird argument to me. Pekar seems to be a well informed person even if he neglected to mention the treaty. Harvey always looked tired to me. Never really angry just like life had beaten him down. He was cynical and just tired. Harvey was trying to find a better situation for himself. The idea to go to Israel was an attempt to find a better life, which is something that most everyone strives to do. It is why I am going to college, and it is historically what drives innovation. Him wanting to go somewhere where he would have had a better chance at success doesn't sound like escaping. The consulate telling him that he was worthless no matter where he went sounded like a bigger blow than the failures he had gone through in America. Anger didn't seem to be Harvey's attitude, just downtrodden.
ReplyDeleteQuestion number two kind of feels like it ties to a lot of the discussions that we’ve had on identity throughout the term. I think at this point that Harvey was guilty of simply being young. So yes, I do believe his wanting to immigrate was part of some misguided escapism, but at the same time I do legitimately think that he imagined that he had a place of belonging there somehow. After all, his Jewish heritage did have a lot to do with his childhood identity—he went to a Jewish school and his parents were so orienting toward the development of the Israeli state. Perhaps he thought that his failure to be successful stemmed from him belonging somewhere else. It’s easy to think that way when we are young, instead of perhaps thinking that we are failing by something of our own faults or failures.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, I think Harvey is really jaded. He speaks harshly of himself, and he is very critical, and the artwork feels very melancholic… I can think of a few panels where he is drawn very small with this overtaking background literally overshadowing him. I think this attitude as a reader almost begs me to join along in condemning him, but the more I think about it, the more I imagine he was just young and jaded.
I think that in a way a lot of the conflict of this story can be viewed through the lens of personal identity—because the thing that we haven’t really touched on is WHY on earth Harvey exists in such distance toward the conflict, yet is so invested in attached to it. Why undergo such a work? What is at stake for him?
It could be this identity question, or the second generation guilt (e.g. the implications of identity as a minority) or justification toward some imagined criticizing audience in Pekar’s head.
Not the Israel My Parents Promised Me
ReplyDeleteI believe he barely spoke of the Camp David accord because it was less important. Yes, the accord was made without Palestine’s word, but it was something that ended well for the Middle East. He spoke of how there was always peace then more fighting over and over again in the Middle East, so a stop to it was an important part of history even if Palestine wasn’t given a hand in its development. A book like this can’t include every piece of history. It targets all the major events in the history of the Jewish people and it helps to frame what Pekar desired to tell the reader.
Pekar wanting to leave for Israel was an interesting part of the novel. I felt like he wanted to go there because its always been something he always desired and at that time, he was having so little success in the job market and it felt perfect. He felt like it was the best place for him and his idea of it was grounds to give it a chance. It was definitely a place to escape his problems. The realistic artwork makes him seem very grumpy. I don’t think I’ve seen a picture of him looking happy. He often seems to be depicted in events that he has an opposing agreement with.
The funeral right before seeing Pekar’s funeral was pretty interesting. We were able to see him in his natural habitat with someone who somewhat understands him. I feel like Pekar sees his family too negatively. He wont even let his wife meet them before their untimely deaths. Pekar seems a bit grumpier during this time than any other time in the novel. He gets angry with the guests and the rabbi. He has good reason, but you can somewhat see how he grieves.
This book is so much harder for me to blog about. Ha
I'm not sure why Pekar chose to focus more on the Palestine-Israel conflict and less on the Camp David Accord. Possibly it was because he thought it was more impactful. Also, it might have given the story a somewhat false sense of a peaceable conclusion, when the situation is much more complicated. I think Pekar was definitely using this as a means of escape. The realistic artwork sets a mood that seems angry in a way, definitely grumpy. I think that the way they feel like they are apart from the family makes them cynical and they seem to feel like outsiders.
ReplyDeleteI thought I posted this already. I typed it up but then didn’t hit post. Sry
ReplyDeleteI HAVE to talk about the artistry in this book. From a design standpoint the layout and balance of each frame is amazing!! There is so much thought and great aesthetics in each frame. I think it’s by far the best realistic visuals we have seen yet. It was always interesting to see how the artist chooses to dictate the story. You get to see the artist perceptions exactly as they see it! Things like what the interior of the italian grocery place looks like was great. Hints of different places around the store overlaid on one full bleed image of the story interior is a great way to show places. He used this technique in other area of the book too. It was a great way to show little details throughout the story.
If we talk about how he looks as a main character. I think he looked angry - but at the same time it’s to show the wear he had on him.
Despite the evidence to the contrary (the fact that 80% of this book is history) I don't think Pekar's main goal was to be informative. Anyone could go on Wikipedia and learn about the Camp David Accord and everything Pekar does choose to tell us, and there would have been no point at all in creating this book. I think this was more about how he came to change his mind about Israel. So if the Camp David Accord was irrelevant to that experience, then it makes total sense for him to leave it out.
ReplyDeleteI think Harvey is jaded, grumpy, and angry, but I don't think it's because he wasn't allowed to emigrate to Israel, that didn't seem to be something that crushed him because he knew he was a loser who didn't have anything to do in Israel. They did him a favor by rejecting him. I think his personality is just sour.
Like someone else said, there is bias in everything. There is absolutely no way for us to know what the people at those funerals were really like. The point is not the accuracy of the portrayal its Pekar/Joyce's feelings about it. Harvey was clearly not okay with the Rabbi's interest in how much his mother sent to Israel, but whether this is really the only thing the Rabbi had to say, we can never know.