Discussion Post from Jennifer D.

Jennifer D. was running into some posting issues, so I am posting the following for her:

These panels from the beginning chapters of Maus II focus on Art Spiegelman’s worries over his ability to depict the horrors of the Holocaust. Given the subject, his doubts regarding his ability to recreate such an atrocity are understandable. At one point, he even wishes he could have been with his parents in Auschwitz so that he could really know what they lived through and therefore, be able to describe the events with more accuracy. Could anyone, much less Spiegelman, reconstruct something as horrible as the holocaust effectively?

 Knowing the feelings of inadequacy Spiegelman expresses in trying to reconstruct such a dark and complex reality, do you think his fears were justified or do you think he was able to show the horrors of Auschwitz and /or the holocaust effectively? Find a panel in your book where you think he accomplishes this feat and tell us why that panel spoke to you.

Much has been discussed regarding Art and Vladek’s relationship and Art’s frustration over the fact that he would never be the “perfect” son that Richieu was. He talks about the spookiness of having sibling rivalry with a snapshot and when Francoise says she thought the photo in Vladek and Anya’s room was of Art he states, “That’s the point. They didn’t need photos of me in their room… I was ALIVE!... The photo never threw tantrums or got in trouble… It was an ideal kid, and I was a pain in the ass. I couldn’t compete.”

Having discussed the dynamic relationships in this book, what does everyone make of the final frame? I didn’t catch it the first time I read it, but Vladek actually calls Art, “Richieu.” Why did Spiegelman choose to end the book this way? What was the final message to his audience?

Podcast on Maus

To add some other media to the mix, I made a small podcast in answer to some of your great points/ questions about Maus.  Take a listen, and let me know what you think and if my thoughts are helpful.

Maus II: Masks and Metaphors

A great deal of time has already been spent discussing the use of the animal metaphor in Maus, and rightfully so.  I want to go a different direction, just as the metaphor did in Maus II.  In the beginning of Chapter 2, Spiegelman pulls the reader back into "reality", drawing the characters as humans wearing masks.  Masks had previously been used as well, but in a different context (Jews trying to pass as Poles, for example).  He even makes a direct observation about his animal metaphor when he notes that his therapist's house was "overrun with cats and dogs".  Why would he draw the character back from the animal metaphor, choosing instead to show them as masked humans?  Furthermore, what does this passage suggest about Spiegelman's own thoughts on his metaphor?

At the end of Chapter 2, he plays with the animal metaphor yet again.  Art and Francoise are sitting on the porch after Vladek has gone to bed, discussing what to do now that Mala has left him.  During the scene, Art is shown swatting at mosquitoes and hitting them with a comically large cloud of bug spray before relenting and going back inside.  I consider the timing of this anecdote rather interesting, given the content of the rest of the chapter.  What do you think Spiegelman is showing with this plot point?  Furthermore, do you think this might have been an actual memory of his?

Finally, it is interesting to read the content of these memories when one considers that Art likely had more notes and recordings than he could possibly fit in these two books.  Given that line of thinking, it becomes even more interesting that Vladek is placed in such a positive light throughout the novel.  Art consistently pushes his father away, yet the way Vladek is portrayed seems to suggest something different, almost an admiration.  What do you make of this?  What about the fact that neither book contains a dedication to him?

Maus II: Questions and Observations

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?

Discussion Post from Sebastian on MAUS:

Sebastian was having some problems with his log-in, so I am posting for him:

What makes "Maus" such an incredibly moving and powerful story is not only the detailed descriptions of life in Nazi Europe during World War II, but the complicated relationship between Vladek and Art. This father and son dynamic can be seen over and over again in their meetings. It is evident that Art's relationship with his father is the source of many of his psychiatric struggles, to which he readily admits. Yet the less obvious dynamic of the relationship is how Vladek plays out his psychiatric struggles on his son. What evidence are we given that Vladek has survivor's guilt? And how does this affect his relationship with Art? Furthermore, it would seem that Art's relationship with his mother is also an important one to the novel. Her death contributes to his spiral into depression and often looms overhead. In what ways can we see the effect Anja had on Art?

There is also an interesting amount of "breaking the fourth wall" that takes place in "Maus," almost always exclusively by the character of Art. While in the car with his wife, Francois, Art goes on a rant about his insecurities towards writing "Maus." Yet by the end of it, he relates that, "in real life you'd never have let me talk this long without interrupting" (176, MAUS Complete). Art implies that the conversation with Francois never really took place because it does not echo the reality of their relationship. What other instances are there of Art Spiegelman breaking the fourth wall?

​

Breaking the Frame

In our discussion of Scott McCloud, we talked a great deal about panel shape and consistency.  How might we use McCloud's vocabulary to talk about what Spiegelman does with panels in Maus?

 How does Spiegelman use panels to divide the image of Vladek and how does the bottom-right round panel work in the composition?  Why do you think he uses panels in this way during this particular scene?

Can you identify other scenes where Spiegelman experiments with panels/ framing?

Is there Any Place for Humor in the Holocaust?

Maus is a serious piece of literature about a very serious period of not-so-distant world history. Spiegelman's graphic novel certainly does not shy away from the horror and violence of the Holocaust. Yet, I personally found moments of humor throughout. For me, the biggest laugh was when Vladek and his friends ate the cake that was partially made out of laundry soap. The moment was genuine and a surprise. We can find bemusement in such a scenario, but this is a real life memory from an actual occurrence. And these people experienced the worst humanity has to offer; displacement, persecution, and genocide. I find it no coincidence that 3 pages after the laundry soap cake incident we have gone from comedy to tragedy as we see Vladec and Anja literally starving - going so far as to chewing on wood. 

What panels or scenarios (if any) did you find humorous? Did these moments seem natural and well integrated or contrived and obligatory "comic relief?" What function does humor serve in the novel? Finally, does humor merely break tension or also contribute to it? Any examples of this in pages 61-120?