Realism in a Surreal Setting
Anthropomorphic mice aren’t so hard to believe in
lighthearted cartoons and children’s stories, but when these cute and cuddly
animals start telling us of some of the most tragic stories in human history,
it may be more difficult to suspend our disbelief. Spiegelman invests a lot of
his narrative illustrating elaborate details of Vladek’s life and building the relationship between father and son. Why
does he invest so much of his story on little moments of spilled pill bottles,
arguments, and tangents? How does this affect our impressions of a very surreal
world of talking animals? Furthermore, how does this affect our impressions of
the characters?
Is it significant that the characters seem unaware of their
animal appearances?
I sort of touched on this in my previous post but the question is what happens when Artie says he wants his story to seem human, but he's telling it through animals? I actually think that the use of animals makes the story more human because a larger audience can relate to it. Maus is not just a Jewish story but a human story and the animals make the work universal.
ReplyDeleteI think Spiegelman invests so much of the story in those little moments like pill bottles spilling because it was also his father's story. He felt that he had to present his father to his audience truly and honestly. He even comments about this struggle to portray his father positively and honestly at the same time somewhere in the book but I was unable to find the page. In the end, the annoying little parts of Vladek's character, like his stinginess and need to save everything, are what kept his family alive during the war. Without it,they never would have survived. His other quirks only add to his complex character.
The human qualities of these mice, pigs, and cats are what make this story come to life. We now interpret them, automatically, as people, but during this time period these people were seen as animals, the hunter/hunted. Tangents and insertions of spilling pills and the like help with the relationship between the real and surreal; we are pulled into this surreal, mouse and cat world, then are transported back to "reality" by the inserted scenes of the spilled pills and complaints about Mala.
ReplyDeleteI like your question about the significance of the characters being unaware that they are animals. It seems like the beginning of WWII and the Holocaust, the Jews did not necessarily know they were the prey, though the Nazis knew they were the hunters. This adds a new excitement to the animalistic tale.
I was just about to say the same thing as Jennifer here before. I think it's very intentional to use animals as the characters to create a universal acceptance, and almost a unity between the characters and the readers. Not that you can relate to a mouse, but this mouse is very human. Everything he says, everything he does is human, but he is a mouse, not to be just a mouse, but to avoid any other stereotypes of human, so that he can be universally recognized and identified with. He talks so much about being human, and doing human things. It's very purposeful and I think done very well. I think the characters don't think they're animals because they aren't. They just happen to look like animals to us.
ReplyDeleteSpiegelman wants to tell his father's story. That involves everything from his beginnings, his time in world war II, to the present of him telling the story. It's not just his father's old story he's telling. It's everything about him. In a way, it kind of makes me dislike Spiegelman's character a little bit, seeing the way he treats his dad. He treats him almost like an old relic, just wanting to get stuff from him, but not help him in any way. And yet telling this story is something he views as helping him greatly. I feel as though this is clearly building to a point in the story where Spiegelman will have some kind of clash outside of the "story", which will hopefully (but maybe not) better their relationship. Time will tell. But I'm hooked.
I think Spiegelman uses tangents throughout the story for two very different reasons. The first, and most obvious, is for a bit of comic relief. This story is a very tense, very difficult one, with Vladek recounting terrible memories. As such, it only makes sense that Spiegelman would try to carefully insert a bit of humor to lighten the mood from time to time. Otherwise, the story would be far more difficult to read.
ReplyDeleteHis second reason is that is makes the story much more realistic. While it is in most ways a memoir, the entire story is very meta-fictional in nature. The plot revolves around his father recounting his own story, meaning that distractions and tangents would come very naturally. Besides, much of this story was gleaned from audio recordings that Spiegelman made of his father telling the story, meaning that such incidents would (presumably) be on those tapes.
The animal metaphor is an interesting one, and something that makes this story a far more engaging read. However, I agree that the moments where the story briefly makes direct points about this are very intriguing. I believe that Spiegelman is using these moments to poke fun at the fact that people don't really know what they mean when they say something "seems human". Moreover, he is pointing out that though we all consider ourselves human, the divides between ethnicities and cultures are often so entrenched that it can seem like we are different creatures, hence the animal metaphor. He is making us think about things differently, such as the bit about dry chicken. It seems shocking to think about these mice eating chicken, but is it really? We humans are animals, so why is it any less shocking for me to eat a chicken breast than it is for Vladek? The answer is that is actually isn't. We just tend to think of ourselves as something different simply because of our species' superiority complex.
There’s an example of the human/symbolic animal tension you’re talking about that :::really::: stuck out to me, even on a first read. During the dream sequence where Vladek’s grandfather appears to him to tell him about the parshas truma, the grandfather character places his hand on Vladek. Spiegelman chooses to render the hand in fine detail (relative to the work overall), and it strongly exhibits the characteristics of a human male hand.
ReplyDeleteSo once I saw that, I went back and checked and all of the hands are rendered as specifically human in closeup shots (in the variety of medium shots, they are rendered simply and could be argued as human or mouse). I found that to be very interesting. The faces of the characters are rendered as animals, while the appendages are rendered in a very human way.
In terms of the storytelling, I think a lot of the things you’re talking about (spilling of the pills, dry chicken, etc.) simply contribute to the ‘human noise’ of the story. As most of you know better than I do, you have to have that kind of stuff to lull the reader into the world you’re trying to portray. I don’t think it has as much to do with Spiegelman trying to play between the animal/human, but it has more to do with Spiegelman just trying to flesh out the world of the story to draw you into it and convince you that the world is real. This is especially important because he needs to establish reliability as a narrator because he wants you to believe the historical accuracy of the tale he is about to tell you.
Giving animals human characteristics are very significant in any story. The usage of the cat and mouse has a huge affect on the reader and how they portray the characters. Cats tend to bully and banter mice so the connection is relevant to the Nazi-Jew relationship. The ways the characters are portrayed are very human but the symbolism behind the animals is a huge component in relaying the message that Spiegelman is trying to send.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Spiegelman is using instances such as the pill bottle, wire hanger, etc. as a way to show the reader the personality of the character of Vladek. Without these instances, we wouldn’t know what kind of “person” Vladek is and how it fits into the bigger picture or storyline. By using these instances, I view Vladek as a man who has had to deal with a lot, especially the war and Nazi control. It shows me that he had a rough life and has little to no patience. I feel as if I’m still learning who he is so my assumption above may change as I read on.
As far as the characters being unaware of being animals, I don’t find as significant. There are a few instances that I noticed of the characters having more humanistic features (such as the hands—Max discusses this above). I also noticed that in some of the frames, the color of the characters change—the characters are usually portrayed as the color white but in some frames they are black (i.e. the bottom of page 23 and 31). I’m not sure what significance this plays in the story but I have been wondering why the change of colors.
It is not uncommon for us to use interpret symbolic beings as people when we read stories. There have been countless acts of symbolism within stories that we can relate to. The comics above use that symbolic appeal by substituting animals as people. This is common in some comics, but this is what makes them come to life. As I have said before in an earlier blog post, this is what appeals to the reader's interest. The Tangents and insertions of spilling pills is the helping link between real and surreal. The reality involves the life lesson of spilling pills and the surreal involves the fiction human-like mice. By using the surreal technique on top of a realistic lesson, the author has successfully informed the reader of what he was presenting.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with what folks are saying about the tangents and random quirks like spilled bottles. It makes the characters much more real. It reminded me so much of "The Princess Bride," with the way that the grandfather was reading the book to the boy and we kept going outside of the story for their little conversations. We saw the ways the characters related to each other NOW and it just rounded them out so much.
ReplyDeleteAs for the humanness of the animal characters, it's just very interesting. I like it, because I feel if they acted anything BUT human, it wouldn't be believable or realistic at all. It would just take away from the story. Like Max, the human-like appendages stuck out like a sore thumb.
I will say, it is interesting to note that even though these animals are depicted in a very human way, the themes still stick. The cats are going after the mice, etc. The animals worked very well as symbols.
A couple of observations here. First, details like spilling pills is something as readers we can all relate to - these little, mundane "banalities of life" moments. This humanizes Art and Vladek in a way to make them more real.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, these moments play an important and integral function in the comic; these scenes not just contrast with the flashbacks but also compliment them. Vladek must survive a concentration camp when he is young ... now that he is advanced in years he must deal with pills, leaking drains, and wire hangers. These present day problems at first glance seem slightly comical against the backdrop of the Holocaust but closer examination reveals a deeper level of importance. Presumably the pills help to keep Vladek in good health, if not alive. Likewise, the drain is part of his shelter - also needed to remain alive. In most scenes we see Vladek in "survial mode" - exercising, eating, counting pills. He is still doing everything he can to survive - the stakes are just as high, only the obstacles change.
Though the tangents and spills bring a realness to the characters, I see these more as the after effects of a traumatic experience and the disconnect it creates by those who do and do not experience those traumas.
ReplyDeleteThe animal facade is just that. When Vladek "acts" Polish, and is shown wearing a pig mask, that is how I see all the characters. As if they are humans in costumes, meant to lighten the mood and help aid the viewer through the work without so much visual darkness or without it becoming too real. While also easily identify the characters symbolically. Thus allowing the characters to still act human i.e. eating chicken, rollerskating, and so on.
There's one point in the story (I'm not sure that we've read there yet in class so... spoiler alert?) where Anya is terrified because there are rats running around them. At that point, I was pretty sure we're supposed to forget that the characters are the animals they're drawn as. The details that were mentioned in the post (spilled bottle, freaking out about the ashes on his carpet, etc) definitely help readers to forget, but I think what also helped were the human-like circles under the eyes, Vladek standing while he pees outside, etc. that really established the characters' human nature to me.
ReplyDeleteI agree with other post here the idea of mice as the protagonist and the cats as antagonist, makes the story of the holocaust more universal. Cat, mice, pigs are relatable no matter who you are. I also agree with other post about how the idea of a mouse eating salted herring or taking pills humanizes the story while keeping it accessible to all readers.
ReplyDeleteI think that is was a good idea to make the animals human like. I cannot imagine the story any other way. I think that the use of the animal gives the story more life and makes the events more interesting. I love animals and because of this, even though the story dark at times it still appeals to me.
I somewhat touched upon this in Matthews post, but I think that it is vitally important to understand that Spiegelman is attempting to explore the Holocaust on a more direct, character-based level. The historical tragedy of the Holocaust is something that, for the most part, can really be processed on the macro level. There has been so many books, movies, and other media about it that it's often hard to separate the forest from the trees. By setting anthropomorphic animals as the characters of the piece, Spiegelman disarms the viewers expectations. In the back of our minds we understand that this is a piece about the Holocaust (it is impossible not to be reminded of that), but the use of animals in the role of the main characters offers us a new avenue to enter the narrative. Were it simply humans playing the part, it would be much harder to even will up the energy to read the tale. Not to mention how hard it would likely have been for Spiegelman to illustrate it himself.
ReplyDeleteAs valuable of a device that the anthropomorphic elements of the piece are for the viewer, I'm not sure it has much bearing within the "world" of the book itself. In that regard, there is a bill of a duality to the narrative here. For the benefit of the reader, these characters are separated from their humanity so that the horror and tragedy of the tale might be more approachable. However, these characters are based on real people. So in that light they must also play the part of surrogates. In that light, under the veil of the art the characters are essentially human.
I think part of the reason Art spends so much time on these little moments is because he wants to humanize his father. His father is more than a Holocaust survivor, he is a man who had high aspirations and strange corks. Some of these corks may attribute to his surviving. Whether they are important to the story of the Holocaust may be up for debate, but they are important for us if we want to know the real Vladek.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the fact that the characters are animals doesn't affect my impression of the characters because after a few pages I also forget that they’re animals because of their many overwhelming human characteristics. Also, the characters are sketched so plainly that I can hardly distinguish one character from the rest. This allows me to put myself in the characters shoes better than if they were more detailed.
It is ironic that Artie says he wants the story to be more human, but then draws everyone as animals, but I think the characters being portrayed as animals is for symbolism. That’s why I don’t think it’s really important that the characters are unaware of their animal appearances.
I personally think that Art Spiegelman is very underrated as a storyteller. Sure his artwork and artistic representation of the holocaust is inspiring and truly marvelous. And it could also be argued that Art Spiegelman did not create any of the plot itself, but merely penned his father's story. However, I would argue that the way Art Spiegelman presents the story is not only very unique, but also very creative. By adding such small moments such as the spilled pill bottles and the little nuances of his father's personality, Spiegelman draws us further into the story and invests our interests into not only the story, but the characters' lives. Thus, the story itself becomes more interesting to the reader through their love for the characters. It also adds a human element to the surreal world of talking animals. Without these tidbits of human nature and honest life, "Maus" might come off as more of a fictional story in a created world, and not a true story placed in factual history.
ReplyDeleteI think that Art's admission of wanting the story to seem "human" is simply using irony as a literary device. When Art mentions the word "human," it automatically calls us out of the anthropomorphic world and back into the real world. In this way, Spiegelman is able to keep the reader reminded that "Maus" is, at heart, a story about humanity, and not just an endeavor into uncharted artistic territory.
On another note, it would seem that there is something of an irony to Spiegelman's anthropomorphic characterization of the cast of "Maus." It would seem that the characters are completely unaware of being animals. Perhaps this is to add a sense of disillusion to the story. Art's character is portrayed as being very neurotic and egotistic. And it would seem that this anthropomorphic characterization compliments this neurosis by blurring the identities of these characters. Just as Art struggles to come to terms with his identity as the son of holocaust survivors, to the reader, it seems that the characters are trapped in the form of animals and struggle to discover their true human nature.
Personally I really appreciate how Spiegelman decides to portray his characters as animals. He sticks to historical references of propaganda but not the sly malicious WW2 versions. Instead he really does make an effort to twist the original illustrations into a softer more sympathetic form. Spiegelman lets us sit in on the quieter moments of their lives so we can begin to relate to them and the personal stories of their lives.
ReplyDeleteI think the longer we spend with these characters the more we realize that the forms of the characters don't really matter. Besides being able to identify all parties involved there are no stereotypes associated with their personalities. This particular work reminds me of Where the Wild Things are. Which I believe was written about the the holocaust. Both illustrators have chosen to shroud there message behind animals. Becuase the acts that occur in the story are truly animalistic.
I personally agree with some of the comments above about Spiegelman's need to "flesh" out his story in order to pull readers in. Walking a line between realism and surrealism allows for an interesting effect between the eye and mind of the reader. We inevitably feel somewhat removed from the experience of these anthropomorphic mice because of their appearances. By incorporating commonplace and realistic elements, such as hands that resemble human hands, the reader can form a stronger connecting to these characters. This creates an interesting "tug-of-war" effect where our eyes are pulled into a fantasy world of bipedal mice, then pulled out into a harsh and realistic depiction of the story. This effect is intentional and powerful because it serves almost as a reoccurring reminder to the reader that this story, while seeming fanciful, actually has very real roots in history.
ReplyDeleteThe contradiction of metaphors is very surreal and adds more weight to the feelings present in the novel. I think Spiegelman is intentionally drawing attention to the fact that the animals in the story are not actually animals. He is giving the reader a reality check, reminding them that they are reading a comic with visual cues representing meaning. These surreal moments remind me of McCloud’s opening for his chapter about icons. Spiegelman is letting his readers know that “this is not a pipe” but instead a representation of very real and horrible events in our history.
ReplyDeleteIn any story regardless of the medium having small moments between the characters can really add depth to character relationships that can help the story in many ways. First I think it establishes the somewhat strained relationship between Art and his father. Why would the pill bottle being knocked over by Vladek be Art’s fault? And when Art offers to recount the pills for him his father waves it off as if he can’t trust his son to do so. I also feel that it shows the generational gap between them made wider by the fact that his father had suffered through the unthinkable while Art lived in a post-Holocaust world and has no personal connection to it to develop the same attitudes as his father. He doesn’t realize before the beginning of the comic just how much his father suffered and how much it means that his parents survived. These types of interactions allows our suspension of belief to stretch further than it may have in the beginning. We begin to realize that the appearance of the characters isn’t what matters but the story they have to tell.
ReplyDeleteI believe that plays into the moments where that the veil of disbelief is jarred because suddenly we remember that this isn’t really a story about mice but a story of actual events in a human’s life. Not just any ordinary event but a time in history that changed the course of humanity. In particular the moment when Art says he wants to story to be more human. Suddenly we remember what is really taking place and it makes us truly think events. Before this point in Maus there is something of distance between the reader and the narrative primarily because of the characters’ appearance. By bringing up the fact that the story is indeed about humans that distance disappears. We begin to realize that despite its exterior this is a story of a man who was lucky enough to survive and we learn to respect that.