While reading this book, as interesting as it is, sometimes I wonder if Vladek is including all the details. Some times when we try to recall things that have taken place in the past there may be some discrepancies, this may be intentional or unintentional. Do you think that maybe there were some things left out of Vladek's account, were some things embellished even? There is one part in the book where Art read that there was was an orchestra playing when the prisoners were being marched to work by the Germans. According to Vladek there was no orchestra. I am not saying there was or was not. I am just using this as an example.
Another thought I had was about a panel on page 45 of my copy. It is when Art is visiting his therapist Pavel. While speaking to Art, Pavel states that "People haven't changed..." and suggest that maybe they need a newer, bigger Holocaust. Does something else like the Holocaust need to happen in order to get people to change? Or, is every thing okay and people don't need do any changing? I feel that with all that is going on in the world we all have a ways to go.
Vladek can be seen as a miser but he did look after others. When he was promoted by his Kapo he got shoes, a spoon, and a belt for Mandelbaum. He even gave away his bingo winnings to a woman he did not even know. Do these actions make you feel that Vladek is less of the stereotype his story may have you believe?
One thing we talk about in my creative writing classes ALL the time is that in a first person narrative, we walk into the story knowing that since the narrator is NOT omniscient, it is an unreliable narrator. We're seeing things from their perspective, not from the viewpoint of "the dude above." All of these things like the orchestra and embellishments are simply the result of our unreliable narrative, especially since we're being told a story of someone being told a story that happened MANY years ago. So I would say that you're absolutely on point with the embellishments and whatnot. Very good point and very important to reading the story. Sometimes the narrator will do that to ensure that he gets his point across.
ReplyDeleteAs for the second question...that's a very hard and very subjective issue, and depends entirely on the situation.
This was honestly the most interesting part of the story so far. Seeing the difference between Vladek then and now, and it's so hard to connect the pieces of what we see in the moment and what we're hearing from his stories. Going from selfless Vladek to this overbearing, money-grabbing, frustrating to be around old man, it's so hard to see how they can be the same person. But as we continue walking through these experiences, the man we see now starts to make more sense as he's broken down more and more, ultimately with Anja killing herself. We still do see that selfless youngster bust out every now and then (giving the gift to the mouse that ratted him out in volume 1 and the bingo winnings thing), but it's definitely buried under some deep hurts.
I have to agree with Randomattster about the first person narrative flaw. The problem with first person is that the reader only reads what the narrative sees and experiences. When this book was written, we only saw Art's vision of what Vladek was telling him. So it's understandable if there have been spots left out of Vladek's account. I is something that I too am struggling with in my novel that I'm writing.
ReplyDelete"Does something else like the Holocaust need to happen in order to get people to change?" I feel like this is a philosophical question, but it's one that I have to say yes on. What this question is really asking is; do bad things need to happen in order for people to change? This is true because when horrid events happen, people will want to change things for the better, or so that it doesn't happen again. Think about what happened at Pearl Harbor. If the Japanese hadn't attacked, then the United State wouldn't have joined in on World War II. I'm not saying that people should do bad things in order for people to change, I'm saying that change can be influenced when something is not right and should be put to right.
I am the kind of person that always sees the light inside of a person. When it comes to Vladek, despite his money grubbing ways, I still believe that he is a good man with a good heart. I just hard to be that way when you lost so much.
I certainly felt that Vladek was holding back in the story. Art certainly hinted at many underlying issues within the story that neither he nor Vladek spoke of. Much of the unspoken details seemed to revolve around Anja and her diaries. People aren't black and white, there is always a gray area. Which is why it was interesting for me that Maus was a comic detailed in black and white. I think is was like a metaphor for what it wasn't and what unspoken ideas where not being shown in the story. Maybe it was just me, but I felt that Anja's diaries weren't destroyed by Vladek. Although Art is mad at him, I think that Vladek say that on purpose so that Art's emotional outburst would be directed at him and not his mother. Vladek didn't tell Art about the diaries until after he read Art's comic about his mother. As a parent I think that Vladek wanted to help his son and to be closer to him, but also to hide some unspoken truth about Anja. Aside from the animal characters, I think that the art work of Maus speaks to the idea of what is being told versus the hidden truths within the truth of what is being said. Hiding a truth within the truth, like a lie of omission and that is why the story is detailed in black and white.
ReplyDeleteLooking back at the story to when Art included his comic about his mom, I believe that he feels guilt for it. This is his way of saying sorry for the way he portrayed a private family experience. Though he finds revealing private matters to be his best way to tell a story, Art probably embellishes a few of his interactions with Vladek.
ReplyDeletePeople seem to change the most during HUGE events. Do these events need to include a death toll of more than a 1,000? No. There needs to be a change in the world but everyone has their own view one different subjects that it’s almost better to not change anything (in fear of it getting worse) unless everyone can agree that something is extremely wrong. Which no ever does because either people are bribed or they don’t like the idea.
I think Vladek is telling his story to Artie the way he recalls it; he may not recall the details but the details remain as bits and pieces of the big picture. This whole novel has the same atmosphere as when my grandpa tells me war stories. Perhaps part of the reason he leaves some things out is because he has told his story so many times or remembered it to himself that it seems rehearsed now. He lives in a community full of other survivors, so his experiences no longer seem so unique nor do they seem to him to be of any significance to write about.
ReplyDeleteArtie's therapist talks about how there are so many stories already written about the Holocaust; this is a kind of inner-novel conflict: What will make Maus worth reading out of all of the Holocaust books that already exist? Maybe the comment about needing something newer and bigger is more about finding new angles or new evidence that people exist that are just THAT shitty to give Artie and people like him more inspiration to change the world with written word and illustrious exampling. Or perhaps the therapist means we need a revolution that creates a genocide of these shitty people. Maybe he's calling for another flood in the world; something to kickstart a new mindset and generation of people. These are all possible. You're very smart to bring this panel into the conversation because really it is possibly the most potentially controversial of all the panels throughout the novel. Who knows; but it is so interesting to think about.
I think the Holocaust created a sense of community and moderation. People see what it is like to watch the world around them starve, crumble, and be tortured; subconsciously he may be taking care of others in these seemingly small ways in order to balance out his fortune of surviving (another example of survivor's guilt for one of our previous discussions!). He knows what it is like to be in a caring, loving, sacrificial relationship - his marriage to Anja - and to see it taken away through not only death, but suicide. He seems to be taking care of others because he's used to taking care of his wife but no longer can, and those he went through the camps with. He lives in a community of helping others who were once reduced to numbers in a system, waiting for their deaths, and have now been given another chance and another life in a new country. Vladek is exactly this stereotype, not the grump that perhaps Artie (and probably we) figured him to be before and during the writing of this novel.
I think there must be some embellishment and omission, but I think Art does an exceptional job convincing his reader that he intends to be honest and thorough in his portrayal his and his fathers story. Even if he does embellish or omit, we don't distrust the integrity of the narrative.
ReplyDeleteAs for Pavel's comment about us needing a new holocaust, I find that quite troubling. We do not ever want something like that plague mankind again. But at the same time, the systems and institutions in power in our society will not change easily. I think something does have to happen to awaken us and strengthen our resolve to do something about our circumstances (I'm thinking about income gaps, unlivable wages, systemic poverty, money in politics). Maybe it will just be uprising and revolts. Maybe (but hopefully not) it will be more drastic like another holocaust or French Revolution. Pavel may have a point, as hard as it is to accept.
Lastly, I think Spiegelman made a point to include moments of goodness and kindness his father has shown, even in his older life. I don't think Art meant to show his father as a cruel miser entirely. He sees goodness in his father, in his capacity to love Anja and to provide for those in need. He is still frustrated with him, of course, but he is not unreasonable in his portrayal. He includes these kind moments to balance the character (and maybe make atonement for all the harsher moments he illustrates).
Vladek deliberately holding back details of the orchestral seems inconceivable to me. What is there to gain from the omission of this detail? The human brain is a mystery - why do we remember some events down to the most minute detail and other times can't remember why we went to the refrigerator once we get there? Vladek is remembering events that stand out the most after several decades later.
ReplyDeleteI think the scene with the therapist is telling; I read it as though Pavel is lamenting the fact that to today's audience the Holocaust is a historical tragedy that happened decades ago in Germany. Unless people actually experience an event like the Holocaust, the horror of it gets diluted as time passes by.
I don't see Vladek as a stereotype. I think Spiegelman uses his father's quirks to comedic effect. He was always resourceful - a trait that kept him alive. Now we see this resourcefulness in his later life as miserly. I find it interesting that Vladek can take an action that we view as miserly or greedy yet in his mind is perfectly justified. Case in point, he attempts to sneak a watch past the Nazis. When discovered, he is berated for his greed. We find out the watch is the last physical piece he has to remind him of his own father. In this context, the sneaking of the watch does not seem so miserly.
I think one of Maus’s biggest strengths is its attitude toward historical detail. The Holocaust, by its very nature is an event shrouded in mystery and contradiction (there are, after all, a few very crazy people out there who deny it happened at all). Because of all the layers of narrative techniques going on (framing device, metafiction, the fact that it’s a comic strip, etc.) it’s very difficult for the reader to be expecting 100% historical accuracy in the details, as evidenced in things already mentioned like the orchestra, or Vladek’s multiple accounts of how the Nephew died. While some people may be bothered by that (and this may especially be a problem for survivors/witnesses), to me the Holocaust is something that’s so horrible that the only way to describe it to someone who wasn’t there is through a certain amount of fiction. While there are some basic facts that are important, we already have those from other accounts. Maus is not trying to do that, and I think it is better off as a work for that.
ReplyDeleteFor me, Vladek’s relationship with material possessions (as outlined in the story) is fairly simple to understand (although it took Spiegelman a little while to get to the point about it). His material possessions were the only thing he had anything resembling control over during his years under German occupation, and later during his years in the shadow of his wife’s death. While he comes off as ‘miserly’ in many situations, I think Spiegelman paints those scenes because they show the psychological effects of the tragedy in Vladek’s life. When Mala leaves him, he reverts to a nearly obsessive review of his bank records. Finally seeing this backsliding in real time in the story solidified that point for me and helped me to understand Vladek’s character a lot more.
As far as omitting details and what not, I don't think it really matters. We're hearing Vladek's account of what happened to him during the holocaust and we're very aware of that because we also get the scenes of Vladek telling Art the story. It isn't disguised as anything else. Vladek is an old man, and people have their pride so I'm sure there are details that he would either not want to share, or embellish. The events that he tells Art about are some of the most desperate situations I could imagine people being in, who knows how anyone would react.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, about the scene with the therapist, it was really surprising to me that a holocaust survivor would say something like that. The estimated number of people that died in the holocaust is something like 11 million (that's the population of Ohio). With all the unnecessary deaths happening in the Middle East (and we, as Americans, play a hand in that) and all over the world , I don't know how anyone could think there should be a bigger holocaust to make people "pay attention". Sure, we are guilty of only paying attention to what's happening with ISIS after a beheading video gets released, but would 11 million more make us pay better attention? I don't think so.
I would argue that Spiegelman makes an effort to directly address the the difference between history and his work's narrative. As an example, what is so far my favorite passage, the conversation between Art and his wife as the drive in the car. By the end, he acknowledges that the written conversation could never happen in real life (to comedic effect). In doing so, he shatters the illusion of verisimilitude, at least in respect to exact factual accuracy. Otherwise, I would consider Maus to be highly authentic. In addition to just the mere parameters of fiction, I think that some of the explicit inaccuracies just work on a thematic level.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that the analyst passage is postulating that a genocide would be directly beneficial for "people," as the original post is maybe insinuating. Rather, Pavel is suggesting that the documentation of the even has proved ineffective in generating withstanding empathy. It seems to serve as Spiegelman's contemplation on the worth of his artistic endeavor, as in the beginning of the chapter he compares his 'accomplishments' to the unchanged travesties about which he is receiving praise.
And though Vladek is frustrating frugal, I don't this the text ever suggests that he was uncompassionate.
I think it is almost certain that things were left out of Vladek's account and that other things were embellished. Art himself references the immense amount of data he collected from Vladek near the end of the book (over 20 hours worth of recordings alone!), so we would expect at least some of it to be left out. As he is speaking of events that happened decades previously, particularly very painful ones, it can be expected that he wouldn't be able to recall things perfectly. Moreover, we all tend to have a subconscious desire to make ourselves look a bit better, meaning that some of the strength and ingenuity we see in Vladek may not have been entirely accurate. In addition to that, this story was created using notes and recordings of discussions that Art had with his father, so we're getting memories of discussions regarding memories from half a century earlier, so we must also wonder about the accuracy of Art's interactions with his father, stepmother, and wife.
ReplyDeletePavel's suggestion of the need for another holocaust, only bigger, was somewhat disturbing to me, but I understand his logic. As a species, we seem to completely eschew change, preferring the comfort of the familiar, the status quo. When change does come, it often comes as a result of a terrible event or great struggle. History is full of examples, such as the Civil War ending slavery or the horrific acts that helped united people during the Civil Rights movement. These events, while terrible, force people to open their eyes to what must change. But the change may not always be good; one only needs to look at the current scandals surrounding the NSA and the FBI to see that. While Pavel is being hyperbolic with his suggestion of another holocaust, his point does stand in that we only change when we are forced to.
Vladek being a stereotype is actually rather interesting. He seems to be portrayed as being both stereotypical and not stereotypical in this story. In his elder years, he is shown as what could easily be construed as the miserly Jew, while his younger self is shown as an incredibly generous man. The way I read this, his "miserly" tendencies are actually an outgrowth of his generosity. He hoards money and possessions not for himself, but out of a need developed subconsciously during the war to have items available for trade if necessary. Art himself references the fact that he often thought it was simply a result of his experiences during the holocaust, and this is clearly implied through Vladek's story.
It’s true that it’s hard to trust the narrator’s perspective because if I heard the story from Vladek myself, I would probably hear a different version of it. But I’m glad that Art took the time to condense his years of notes into a nice series (for the most part) in chronological order. Obviously Vladek can’t know every detail of who died and how, but his stories do still shed new light on the personal side of the Holocaust. Art goes through the trouble to research and provide real statistics along with Vladek’s story, which provides the bigger picture for the audience.
ReplyDeleteI really don’t want anything bad to happen, nor do I think it necessary.
Vladek may fit the caricature of the stereotypical Jew sometimes, but obviously he can’t fit into the stereotype all the time because it wouldn't fill like we were dealing with a real person. These parts of the story do a good job of showcasing Vladek’s more sensitive side.
I definitely believe there is some embellishment going on in Valdek's recount of his story, maybe it's unintentional, but it could also just be from bias. His perspective of the world, and the people in it, was arguably changed after experiencing the Holocaust. This puts his memories at risk of being skewed or even unfairly balanced in his favor. I think all of us tend to remember ourselves being more heroic in hindsight, but who can say for sure with Valdek.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the therapist Pavel's comments about a second Holocaust, I think he was being somewhat dramatic and pessimistic. If I remember correctly, Pavel was also a survivor of the camps and is therefore faced with the great challenge of forgiving his fellowman. I don't really blame him for being so cynical about the world, but I don't agree that tragedy is necessary to change minds; talk therapy and graphic novels work really well for that and they're both great alternatives to a second Holocaust.
Valdek's behavior can sometimes seem contradictory. He does display a tremendous amount of kindness towards the people he encounters, although often times it's for his own strategic advantage. He identifies people who he later can count on for favors or expect special treatment. But Valdek isn't as much of a miser as we're led to believe. He just has a different understanding, maybe appreciation, for everyday things like scrap paper and carpentry nails. He's experienced a time when the even the simplest of items was a luxury beyond imagination, things we take for granted like chocolate and clothing. His perspective on these things may seem a little extreme, but throughout the course of the story we see his sensitivity to the suffering going on around him.
I'm sure there are forgotten portions and embellishments in this story, just as there are in any story we're told, which is what makes this book a memoir and not a non-fictional work. Vladek is doing his best to recall the information for Art and I'm sure that most of what he remembered was probably pretty accurate. I think it would be hard to forget the things he saw and did, which may be one of the reasons Anya ended up killing herself. I'm sure there were times he wished he didn't remember everything.
ReplyDeleteWhen Art's therapist says that maybe people need a newer, bigger Holocaust I think he is just showing his frustration. Every generation thinks that their generation is worse than the one before so no one ever believes that people can change, but our world has changed for the better in a lot of ways. Does anyone really believe the holocaust could ever happen again? I don't. I don't think the world would allow it. His therapist is frustrated and just isn't speaking intellectually at this point in my opinion. We all say things when we're frustrated that we don't mean.
I think Vladek was a miser because this is what saved his life, but he has a great heart and cares tremendously for others. I think he would have helped as many people as he could have given the chance. I do not see him in a stereotypical way at all when reading this book.
1. I do think that some embellishment was present on Vladek's part. But I think it comes out of a place of necessity to properly deal with the horror's he had experienced firsthand. The mind can do all kinds of weird things when it comes to traumatic events; even reconstruct the circumstances surrounding them completely. And it should be noted that Vladek is old when he's recalling these stories. It's possible that some details have gotten jumbled, or lost. I think what's most important is that it doesn't feel like the emotions themselves are being embellished. If there is a hyper reality to his memory, it's because that's where his emotional level rests.
ReplyDelete2. I think that the idea of necessitating a "newer, worse" whatever is a product of living in modern times. For all of our progress and advantages, there's still a lot of pain and suffering in the world. And it sometimes feels that we haven't learned from the mistakes of our past. But do we need some great tragedy to coalesce us into a bonded unit again? No, I don't think so. That kind of structure is always temporary. Look at how united America (if not the world) was after 9/11. Russia broadcast the national anthem of our country statewide during a televised memorial service. Here we are less than fifteen years later, and we've found any sort of good will born out of that tragedy all but dashed apart. We need to find something better for us all to come together on; not something worse. Worse is temporary. But if we can find a way to do good, and have the act of doing good be the reward itself, that is what will allow us as a species to move forward into the next social level.
3. Vladek's definitely a miser, but it comes from a fairly logical place. He practically had everything taken from him. It's completely understandable that he would be more aware of what he actually has and owns after surviving the terrible events of the Holocaust. To have your entire livelihood taken from you, and to be reduced to nothing more than a number… if you could come back from that, how could you not feel an almost suffocating need to hide and protect the things that you hold most dear?
It does seem like Vladek is leaving out some of the details, but this is perfectly understandable. Having gone through such a traumatic experience, there is definitely a chance that Vladek has subconsciously forgotten certain atrocities and small details. Along that same logic, it would seem that Vladek has embellished certain memories. Time, old age, and emotional and physical trauma have had their effect on Vladek's mind. My own grandfather, as well as many other elderly people, seem to often forget some important events while remarkably remembering the tiniest details about other events. I definitely think that Vladek's story might not be exactly accurate. However, what he forgets and embellishes just goes to show how the Holocaust affected him personally.
ReplyDeleteI was also struck by this panel. Does the world need a new Holocaust? I personally don't think that any one could ever say that honestly. However, in the context of needing something like the Holocaust to bring people together and cause them to change for the better, I think that this is not only true but happens quite frequently. As a history minor, I find it important to place certain periods of time in historical context. For example, born out of World War II came the 50s and 60s generation and the baby-boomers. Terrified of another World War, these people fought against war and violence, and as a result of Hitler's vicious eugenics movement, fought for equal rights amongst all races and religions as well. In the 70s and 80s, the Cold War generation lived in constant fear of nuclear holocaust, and thus began the fight for world preservation and peace among nations. The 90s saw the birth of technology and the downfall of Communism. Generation X lived in fear of government corruption and technological dependency as the world began to open up so that any one person from any one nation might be in immediate contact with another person far away through the medium of the internet. In the 2000s, 9/11 brought about a fear of terrorism and Islam to our generation. To this day, that seems to be the dominant fear. So, whether or not the world needs a "new Holocaust," it seems that, culturally, the world simply finds a new catastrophic event for the people of the world to unite and rally around their ideas about peace and unity.
I think that Vladek may be portrayed a little to stereotypically as a Jewish miser and not simply as an old man from the 30s. After the world-wide Great Depression of the 1930s, most of the children of that generation lived out the rest of their lives in fear of poverty. I have seen Depression-era adults literally pick every last ounce of meat off the bone. Vladek is not conservative with his goods and wealth because he is a miser, but because he is afraid. Especially after having lived through incredible poverty, and then incredible hunger like the Holocaust, it makes sense for Vladek to be conservative about his goods. He doesn't even trust the black hitchhiker, and is afraid that he will steal their groceries. This fear is not born out of Vladek's Jewishness, but rather out of his experiences in the concentration camp, where men literally killed each other over a piece of bread. In fact, I would argue that Vladek is a very giving person considering the incredible acts of kindness that can be seen in his relations with Mandelbaum, the Frenchman, and the girl at bingo. Yet the reason that Vladek is not always so giving is simply because of his fear of ever going poor and hungry again.
We would never know if Vladek is leaving out details or if Art is. Comics is a straight and honest medium where great depth is a hard thing to achieve without making a monster of a series. Spiegelman spent 11 years in the creation of Maus, so it is no surprise to me that he would condense and leave out parts of the story. Maybe some that have been too personal for him, or things Vladek could have requested to be omitted. I think all omissions and embellishments aside, Maus does a great job of being honest to the story and his father's situation.
ReplyDeletePavel's statement of the world needing a "new holocaust" is a very absurd way of viewing social change within society. The need for a new holocaust is what bugs me for the world doesn't need any more terrible acts to change culture. They are already happening, maybe not on the scale of the Holocaust but I would consider that a good thing. Sebastian brings up good points, not only are generationally are people changed by big world events, but also the culture that those generation puts out. Many music and art movements were rejections and reflections of the world and its events. Surrealism came about around the time of the Great Depression, for people rejoiced in scenes that took them out of reality. Impressionism came from the invention of the Camera, so on and so on. Maus itself was a part of the artistic movement of the 80's, known as post-modernism, where people started to reject the ideas of minimalism,clean lines of the Bauhaus movements and pop art of the 60's and 70's. Which also gave birth to the DIY movement of the 90's and so on.
The stereotype on Vladek is an interesting one, it provides humor and is self aware of being a stereotype, but Maus and Art both written to break down stereotypes and racism. Spiegelman was clever with Vladek, he used this miser stereotype to possibly make his audience uncomfortable with how accurate the stereotype could be, or seem to be. Vladek was a man who lived conservatively but only with money. Art shows Vladek brave and out going character through his actions for his loved one, not so much that he was cheap, but that he was caring and smart in order to survive the horrible camps he went through.
There is an interesting dilemma when analyzing what was left out or what was altered within Vladek's story. This is because we are not hearing it from him, we are hearing it from Artie. There is a possibility that Vladek left things out or embellished, but i find it more likely to have happened on Art's end. He is the writer and chooses what is appropriate or relevant for the viewer. Plus things might be altered to maintain face for either himself or his father.
ReplyDeleteImmediately, the answer to "do we need another holocaust for people change" is no. Why encourage another tragedy? Yet I agree that there is a need for growth as a species. Yet a tragedy is not the way to bring about that change. I think Spiegelman is doing exactly whats necessary to invoke a change in people. Informing people of things that allow the viewer to gain new insight to an issue, and is doing it in a way that is exciting and relevant to a culture.
Vladek as a stereotype doesn't sit well with me. As reading Spiegelman's work, I sense that Vladek is following these stereotypical traits as a result of his past. Not to fit some title. As mentioned by others, he isn't just a frugal or stingy man in his entirety. The things he does or says to Artie, may seem rude or harsh, but have hints of true compassion and care.
I think all the seemingly conflicting portrayals of Vladek build a larger picture of a man with a very complex personality compounded by his horrible life experiences. Art seems to feel negatively about his father but showing the reader examples of his goodness leads me to believe their relationship is more complex than simply liking or disliking. By showing the goodness his father is capable of, Spiegelmen is demonstrating how badly the Holocaust affected and changed Vladek’s personality and temperament. It makes me wonder what kind of man Vladek would have been if the Holocaust had not happened.
ReplyDeleteI do think there were both things left out and embellished. Vladek was much older than he had been during the time of Holocaust and, with everything between that time and the present of the comic books, there is definitely a chance that he had forgotten things or that certain events were made far worse with time to reflect upon them. Some experiences may have stuck out more than others and the mind always adds or erases things from memories so that Vladek’s story may not be an entirely intact account. As for the example, I did a quick search of whether there was such an orchestra and there was called the Women’s Orchestra of Auschwitz to prevent the performing girls from being worked to death or gassed. It looks as though they started in middle of 1943 until the near end of 1944 but only at the gate where workers walked in and out. Whether they were playing the time Vladek went through the gates or if he forgot all about them cannot be said.
ReplyDeleteI do think there needs to be a huge wake up call for all nations but nothing on the scale of the Holocaust. No one should have to die to prove a point and it’s horrible that more often than not a person or a mass of people die before others especially those in power take any notice or action. The world has changed a lot since the time of the Holocaust but we still see people treated cruelly based on their skin color or religion. We have much stronger connections and news coverage – thought faith in media is highly doubtful at least for me – that allows us to really know what it going on out there unlike during the Holocaust. We need to be more united and firmer in our ability to help others and make the change we want.
If anything Vladek’s story proves himself not to be a stereotype because he isn’t being miserly out of greed but because he once lived in total poverty with no possessions whatsoever and it makes sense that he would want to preserve everything he had afterwards. Vladek could very well have lived with the fear that something like the Holocaust would happen again and it was best to hold on to what he had to avoid a repeat of his past.