Wow, we're down to only 3 more discussion posts and then we're done for the term. It's been so amazing reading all of these diverse and wonderful texts. Anyhoo, lets get to the task at hand.
As many of us have a general basic knowledge of the state of affairs after WWII for many people of the Jewish faith, how accurate do you think Pekar's summation of history is? Do you think that some of what he has said, particularly any of the historical information, is accurate? Do you think his view of the historical contest of the formation of the State of Israel is skewed by his own opinion and his own knowledge?
The panels and scenes where the descriptions of historical information, such as the many fights between different factions of Jews or the panels that are supposed to look like mosaics, look so intricate and detailed. Do you think that Pekar and Waldman were trying to illicit a historical or artistic reaction from these panels? It's almost as though they were familiar with the ancient artistic mosaics and tapestries that are from the region or show battles from the crusades, is there any effort of they're research that you think is missing?
And finally, what do you think of the more realistic style of artwork? Many other texts we've read this term took on more caricature style/ cartoon style that work with their own abilities as artists, where others like Maus, used it as symbolism. Does work for the story that Pekar and Waldman are telling? Would the caricature style worked for this type of story?
I think everything Harvey Pekar said in "This Is Not The Israel My Parents Promised Me" is probably accurate and true to his historical perspective.He tells the story in a particular order that is mostly but not entirely historically linear. He mentions certain dates and titles of eras. This forms a more defined historical perspective that probably reflects what his parents taught him was most important about his heritage.
ReplyDeleteThe art and mosaics reflect Pekar and Waldman's time spent around history and art books while working together. The specific dates, names, and events highlighted by the text are also defined by the content of the artwork.
The more realistic art is ironic because Pekar is a caricature of himself. Pekar is older and this is not one of his earlier works, so this art style seems appropriate for him as the narrator.
One of the aspects of “Not the Israel My Parents Promised Me” that I immediately found striking was Pekar’s unique circumstance in describing and articulating his views on the Palestine-Israeli conflict. Rather than recuse himself from the conversation because of his personal involvement, he openly acknowledges his own bias and personal history which, as seen in Maus, enriches the narrative I think the intersection of personal and global history is a central concept in any memoir like NTIMPPM. Whatever inaccuracies or omissions that may occur in Harvey’s retelling of Jewish history, we’re nonetheless given the opportunity to recognize the work’s implicit bias through Harvey’s own autobiographical account. In any context or on any scale, history cannot be reduced to mere objectivity. However, it is still possible to understand the past as something experienced through our own and others’ perceptions.
ReplyDeleteI found the use of multiple artistic styles as a nice means of breaking up time frames within the history of the Jewish people, keeping the art style fresh and connecting us with the time period represented. As far as authenticity, it’s a similar situation as with Pekar’s presentation of Jewish history. Whatever factual accuracy these representations may or may not have, they effectively serve their purpose. The level of detail that Waldman provides suggests that his recreations of these artistic styles are not meant to completely emulate them, but instead evoke them, where a general feeling for the historical aesthetic is provided.
I guess the style sets up this really heavy polarity visually between the hyper-realism of Pekar (if you look up his portrait, it’s eerily similar in appearance to the text) and the other characters and the more stylized renderings of the historical narration. We are all set to expect truth in the recounting of the Jewish plight throughout history, yet on one hand we have a narration that is somewhat apologetic in nature (reflecting his own guilt and seeming critical of his race) and on the other we have something that almost calls itself out as a creative retelling visually (E.g. tapestry/book illustration style). I wonder if the style adds to the sort of fallibility of even his critical account of events. I think with these two juxtaposed it wouldn’t work to have Pakar and co. in a more cartoon or caricatured style.
ReplyDeleteWell the story does start off being openly biased, and history is always biased in one way or another based on whose telling the story. The loser never writes history like always. But my point being that I think his telling of history is pretty biased based on Pekar's background, I don't disagree with him on it. I found it pretty amusing. And yes it really should be based on his prior knowledge.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely the historical panels were supposed to elicit an artistic look. During a lot of these times people's main source of storytelling was done through sequential stained glass and mosaic imagery anyway. I find it very fitting and intentional. But I do agree there may be a bit of lacking in their research into the exact art styles of storytelling for the times of these people. But some ages, as in the Biblical times, are almost impossible to replicate through imagery.
I do like seeing the extra effort for nicer illustrations and I do agree it makes the book feel more real. It's nice to have time jumps and still recognize a main character. That's a huge problem for comics that are less realistic and try to do as many flashbacks and time jumps as this one does. The illustration I think is very fine, but the organization of text feels like its been cut straight out of a superhero comic. Just add a narration box here and a 5p stroke word balloon there with the canned font choice to go with it all. That's what gets me as striking against this otherwise very nicely crafted book.
Not the Israel My Parents Promised Me
ReplyDeletePekars summarizes Jewish history very quickly and points out all the major points that lead to their overall development. I myself do not know too much about Jewish history, but to me it sounds very accurate. He is very direct in his description and seems to understand how the Jewish people grew into what they were today. He understands what they went through and how their history affects the people through his talks about his family life. Pekar seems to have a strong opinion of the homeland of the Jewish people. From a young age, history and family as to who and what he supports influenced him. He has a strong opinion on everything and his idea on the State of Israel is some skewed by his own opinion because he’s grown to understand his history. Our personal opinions can come from any new information we acquire while growing up.
The addition of mosaics to set up the history of the Jewish people was really refreshing. It was nice to follow and actually see what the history looked like. I think he was going for an artistic and historical reaction from the panels. The way they are drawn, they remind me of from far in the past. I think they truly wanted to mimic the style of the past to fully understand it. I think they put much effort in this historical piece. I can see so much heart in their art and it really helped me understand history.
We’ve read many pieces that involve a more realistic interpretation of life such as Stuck Rubber Baby and Shortcomings. I really appreciate these interpretations of life. I take it more seriously than anything else if what I am viewing is closely mirroring the real world. Jewish history is being taken seriously in this piece and the art style reflects this need of understanding. I feel like Pekar could of used multiple styles of art to show the reasoning for writing this piece. I love the transitions between the historical mapping with the multiple styles of art and the lack of caricatures seems unnecessary.
I mean I don't presume to know anything about the biblical history or the actual history of Judaism but I'm sure Pekar's summation is not inaccurate. He would definitely have done his research and given all the facts as they are known to be true or it would have hurt his and the books credibility. The entire history he gives seems really impartial, so I think his bias comes into play more with the current state of affairs rather than the history.
ReplyDeleteI think the art for the historical panels is definitely supposed to evoke ancient tapestries and mosaics. I think Satrapi actually did something similar when she was giving the history of Iran's revolutions. I think this just has the effect of making the reader feel like they are actually getting this information from a museum or some more authentic source. I think its actually really common to do this and I know I've seen it done in multiple movies.
This art style is very similar to Bechdel's, although hers may have been slightly less realistic/detailed. I thought it worked very well for her, but in this case there are some panels that are so intensely detailed that they stick out and it makes me think they are important when it really just might be Waldman flexing his muscles. I respect Waldman's skill but his art does not really stick out from the words and I find myself reading the dialogue balloons and missing a lot of the art. I really do not like black and white comics at all, color is so much easier to read.