One of the most brutal and graphic scenes that I noticed during the reading was while they were fleeing Auschwitz and there was the scene where he compared the prisoner that was shot and killed to the squirming dog he saw shot during his childhood. We see legitimate animals used throughout the novel alongside the animalian human beings. It's generally some kind of side details (the rats, the bugs, the dog) that weren't necessary to moving the story forward. Did the utilization of real animals next to animalian humans take you outside of the story at all? Do you think that Spiegelman made it work/did it enhance (or did it not work for you) and why?
In terms of the photographs, we see lots of photographs throughout the course of the two volumes (volume one we see the picture that Anja and so on,) but at the end of volume two, we see an ACTUAL picture of Vladek. Why do you think Spiegelman chose to use a real picture, rather than just animate one like he did throughout the rest of the two volumes?
I think that Spielgelman's choice to use actual animals next to anthropomorphic ones was a good choice. It sort of reminds me of something a child would do in creating a comic. Children have a way with blending fantasy with reality.
ReplyDeleteI think Spiegelman chose to put a photo of this father in the book to put a face on the inhumanity that was the Holocaust. I also feel that it could be part of the tribute to his father.
Whenever Spiegelman uses human figures with mask, I was brought back to reality when I was getting too caught up in the idea that these were mice and not humans. So it works for people who get caught up in a story. It’s almost like actors on a stage who break the fourth wall when they address the audience or an event outside the stories time.
ReplyDeleteHe probably used a real image to break the barrier that he placed when he used animals as the image of humans. A moment of “This was real. Even though I made this whole story it is a retelling of an actual event. This is proof that none of this is just another fairy tale”.
ReplyDeleteThe use of real animals alongside the anthropomorphic Jewish mice does not take us outside the story, but rather simply amplifies a point Art is trying to make: that the Jews in the Holocaust were treated like animals, and killed like dogs. It enhances the work by showing the grotesque violence of the Nazis and how even Vladek begins to feel like he is an animal.
I think that because the novel is coming to an end, Spiegelman felt the need to show a real picture of his father in order to break away from the surrealism of the work. The use of mice to depict the characters in the novel helps to distance the reader emotionally from the brutal sufferings in Vladek Spiegelman's life. Yet here, in the final chapters, Art reaches out to the hearts of his readers and wants them to feel for his father's life of suffering and his ultimate release.
We've talked quite a bit already about these strange moments in the novels where Art shows simultaneously anthropomorphic characters and realistic actual animals. Along with realistic dialogues and the masked scenes, Art uses these visual cues to remind us of the reality of the story he is telling. These moments take us into a place where we remember "oh, yeah, this is about REAL people!!"
ReplyDeleteThe photograph is an interesting addition. Especially since its a staged photo of Vladek in the camp uniform. Again, I think this is a reminder of the real suffering and tragedy of the holocaust. I think this shows how important it is to Art to honestly and accurately depict his father's story.
I think we’ve already beaten a dead horse on the animal metaphors. I honestly don’t think the inclusion of the ‘real’ animals alongside the anthropomorphic ones means anything other than that there were animals there.
ReplyDeleteThe photograph of Vladek is not surprising, I think Spiegelman intended it as a climactic tool to ‘peel back the layers’ for a second and connect the reader directly to a primary text, some form of ‘evidence’ or an ‘eyewitness’ to the Holocaust. Which is all well and good. However, many contemporary authors have explored the use of photograph in memoir and, in many ways, totally subverted the technique (Dorothy Allison comes to mind, especially Two or Three Things I Know For Sure). Anyone who’s done even the slightest bit of reading on the matter will tell you that photographs are just as subjective as any method of storytelling/relaying information. Even in referenced photo of Vladek, he’s wearing a fake camp uniform (which Spiegelman points out, to his credit). So while I understand the intended use of the photograph, I think this strategy is very problematic, especially when it comes to anything resembling memoir. To many people, it will lend an ‘authenticity’ which is, in actuality, entirely constructed.
I don't think Spiegelman was trying to prove anything with the photo. It's not about eyewitnesses or evidence. Sentiment, yes, but never cold hard evidence. He never trying to say that something ever happened for sure. He is only telling a story through another person, and the meta-narrative going on alludes to this in some degree. I think what is more important is how the photo affects the story. It is more about bringing the story, depicted in high surrealism, to a very real place. Even if the photo was completely fake, it would still serve this purpose by merit of its 'photograph-ness' alone.
DeleteI couldn't help but find that part, real animals next to animalized characters, confusing. Personally, a part of me didn't think it worked at all because the characters were already animalized so I thought that the addition of real animals were an unnecessary touch. But then again, the real animals might have served a certain purpose that couldn't have been left out of the story. So I'm going to have to remain neutral on the question of did the animals work or not. As for the photograph of Vladek, I believe that was just added to give the reader a sense of appeal. By showing an actual picture of Vladek, the book has emphasized the emotions of Anja and Art when they saw the photo to. Thus giving the reader a sense of how overjoyed Vladek and Anja will be once reunited.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, was anyone else completely shocked that they took souvenir photos in the concentration camp clothes? Whoa.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I think Art chose to reveal Vladek's photograph in the end because it had much more impact that way. The entire story we're following the events as they happen to a mouse, who looks exactly like every other mouse in the story. In this way, we're seeing the mice as a whole of face-less victims of the holocaust. Though we empathize with Vladek and other holocaust victims we can't put faces with the pain and suffering. When we see Vladek's photo, suddenly he is a person and the events that we read about previously become all the more tragic because we now see the face and the individual that was affected.
Grrrrr .... This is my FOURTH attempt at posting this after hitting Publish and then seeing my contribution deleted three times.
ReplyDeleteNot to beat a dead anthropomorphic horse; yes, I totally believe that animals and anthropomorphic animals can coexist. If anything, the inclusion of animals reminds us that the novel depicts real people that suffered from real-life tragedies. Likewise, the inclusion of photographs have the same effect. I think Vladek's photo was appropriate and touching. We had already seen a phot of Anja and Art togeher, as well as Richeu. I think there is little use in being critical or cynical here. This is Spiegelman's father - the very man the graphic novel is a testament and dedication to. Furthermore, we see Vladek as he wished to have been seen (considering the photograph was staged). A fitting end, indeed.
For me, having normal animals next to anthropomorphized ones served to enhance the story. Because the human race thinks itself so superior, we often forget that we too are animals. Additionally, throughout history, various cultures have often considered certain races and ethnicities to be no different or more evolved than a wild animal. Spiegelman's message is that we need to deflate our heads a bit and remember that the differences between us are not as important as the similarities.
ReplyDeleteI found the use of actual photographs rather interesting because they help to show things that Spiegelman might not have been able to otherwise convey. A great example is the morbid souvenir photo Vladek had taken of him in a camp uniform. The expression on his face in the photo is something that Spiegelman could not have drawn because it seems to defy description. One can only wonder precisely why he would want such a disturbing souvenir.
The inconsistency of the metaphor takes the reader out, but that is acknowledged by Spieglemean, and thus, by design. At one point he writes something to the affect of "Does this ruin the metaphor?". Though I think that the specific instance of the dog memory is thematically separate from the animal metaphor, such a reading would further allude to the inhumanity of the Jew's treatment.
ReplyDeleteHe actually doesn't just use animated pictures throughout the rest of the book—each one of his family are shown as themselves. We see Art and his mother during the pages taken from his previous comic, and we see his brother in the dedication preluding the second book. The story is predominantly one of family, which I think the usage of sudden real-life imagery emphasizes amongst the the overarching plot of the Holocaust.
The liquid nature of the animal/human metaphor is tricky throughout the book, but every time it comes into conflict of a portrayal or reference to a real animal, it actually helps to refocus your attention on the fact that the main characters of the book are, in truth, not animals. Rather, they are human beings. REAL human beings who had to endure the horrors being portrayed in MAUS. Everytime a "real" animal was introduced (be it literally or figuratively), I had to mentally acknowledge the fact that the bodies being portrayed hanging in the streets, or piled atop one-another in the nude, were in fact not white mice. There was a sobering element to these moments of deconstruction in the metaphor for me.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I think that the use of a photograph of the "real" Vladek is meant to contextualize the brutality and horror that we have witnessed. It's very easy to become separated from the actual truths of the story being told, and to see it presented only as fiction. Including a real photograph helps to remind the reader of the true face of Vladek's journey.
When Art Spiegelman uses real animals next to the anamorphic characters it does somewhat disrupt the metaphor, but I think he does it in such a way that it works. The anamorphic characters are simple cartoons, while the real animals are giving more detail to look realistic. This aspect helps to not disrupt the metaphor entirely. This could also be part of the reason why Art made the characters with less detail because that way they would be able to be distinguished from the real animals with more ease.
ReplyDeleteI believe the photos are a way to bring the audience back to reality by connecting a real concrete photo to these animal characters. The use of animal characters allows the reader to detach themselves a bit, but then when exposed to an actual photo, it reminds the audience that this is highly based off a real story, and that these were real lives that were taken. When the reader is shown actual pictures of Art’s brother, Anja, and Vladek which functions to ground the audience back to the reality of the situation.
It did take me outside the story a little but that isn’t to say this hasn’t been used in different stories. Disney is infamous for having animals that are like humans while owning animals that act like regular animals. It was somewhat different in this case because of the gravity of the story but I understood why they were included and didn’t pay much attention to it after a few times. It reminded me of how the main characters are only animals for the sake of a metaphor.
ReplyDeleteThe last photo brought about a sense of victory having survived the Holocaust and going back to such mundane things like photographs. But it also showed how the damage it left behind will leave lasting impressions as Vladek was wearing a prison camp uniform in the picture. It also gives the readers a chance to actual see the man they have been following through the story and make the situation more realer than before.
The photos, specifically Vladek's I believe were ways to insert and remind readers that this person is real, this really happened. Not that people don't believe the holocaust, but giving the personal account of Vladek validity. Also it provides a atmosphere no drawing could do.
ReplyDeleteSpiegelman's addition of real animals aside his anthropomorphic animals allows the idea of them being something more than mice or cats, but real humans. Similar to relating the physical humans to the drawn characters, similar to the addition of photos.