"Maus": Disturbing Revelations

Art Spiegelman's "Maus" brings up many troubling aspects of WWII, namely that of Jewish people in Europe. It does so in the form of a graphic novel. The drawings add a unique component to the story because often books recounting Holocaust survivor experiences are in novel form with few if any photographs. The drawings create a visual (obviously). There are many points in the first half of the story which I found troubling. One such part is on page 121 when Vladek (Art Spiegelman's father) discovers that cake is to be had in the ghetto if one can pay the 75 zlotys for a slice. The man who sells the cake goes around collecting the ingredients from houses of people who have been sent to Auschwitz. Vladek buys some of the cake for himself and Anja, his wife. I found this situation troubling because while I understand that selling the cake helps people survive, it seems disturbing that they are making money off of the misfortunes of others. Furthermore, I was disturbed that Vladek didn't seem to think about the ethics of the situation, although we can't know for sure because he may never have told Art about any emotions he had about it and we are reading the story which has been filtered through Art.

Another part of the book I found disturbing was on page 110 when some children in the ghetto were going to be taken to Auschwitz and were unable to stop crying because they were afraid. The Nazi response was to murder these children by bashing them against a wall. This scene is upsetting for many reasons, not least of which is how sad was the fate of these innocent victims. But I found the scene troubling for another reason: I wondered to myself how many of these soldiers who were murdering these children had children themselves in Germany or had much younger siblings or nieces and nephews. I have always been dismayed by the ease with which the Nazis were made to believe that Jewish people were less than human and therefore killing them was perfectly acceptable. When a child is crying and screaming from fear, killing him or her, especially in such a cruel fashion, seems like the opposite of what should be the natural response - to attempt to calm the child.

In both of the above situations, the response of people to what has happened is strange to me. The latter example is much more disturbing than the former, but they both have their negative aspects.

The Silver Scorpion - Muslim Superhero

Earlier this week, I found a newspaper article about a new comic book superhero  coming out - a Muslim boy. But even more interesting is that this boy is in a wheelchair. The idea for this superhero came from a group of disabled young Syrians and Americans who met in Damascus last month. The article states "The superhero's appearance hasn't been finalized, but an early sketch shows a Muslim boy who lost his legs in a landmine accident and later becomes the Silver Scorpion after discovering he has the power to control metal with his mind." He will use his  "power to flight for social inclusion, equity and justice." I think this comic book hero is an interesting idea, because I have never heard of a Muslim superhero before. And the idea to have a superhero with a disability is wonderful; I hope this will have a positive effect on how people with various disabilities are perceived. I'm interested to see how a Muslim superhero will be perceived by Americans. I'm curious about how many countries this comic book will be distributed in. The article mentions that the company hopes to release the first issue in November, and the comic book will be published in Arabic and English. The ability to control metal with his mind should provide opportunities for many intriguing storylines. I'm interested to see what other characters are brought into the comic book; the article does not mention sidekicks or villains or any other characters besides the boy himself. It's not even clear from the article if he has a name yet (his real name, not his Silver Scorpion moniker). I think Silver Scorpion is an excellent superhero name, although it reminds me of the Silver Surfer. "New Muslim comic book superhero on the way" by Edith M. Lederer is the article.

Comic Books Exploring Important Social and Historical Issues

As I continue to learn about the history of comic books, I'm becoming more and more aware of how comic books have been used to deal with social and historical issues. For instance, in his book "From Krakow to Krypton" Arie Kaplan discusses Superman "as social crusader" (85). He notes the comment by George Reeves about the Superman TV show in the 1950s that "We even try, in our scripts, to give gentle messages of tolerance and to stress that a man's color and race and religious beliefs should be respected" (85). I was surprised to read this, simply because I don't generally think of 1950s America as a time of tolerance. This was before the Civil Rights movement and before ideas about general diversity were widely received. I did notice in his comment that he refers to tolerance for " a man's" race and beliefs, not including women. While not probably intentional it was interesting to me because it reflects a time of male privilege in America - he says nothing about women and doesn't use a term like "human's" or "person's." However, his comment does reveal an emphasis on tolerance in a time when tolerance for other beliefs and equality for people of different backgrounds, racial or otherwise, was not widely considered.

Another issue that comic books tackle is the Holocaust. I was really surprised to learn about this. The X-Men villain Magneto is a Holocaust survivor. Another X-Men character, Kitty Pryde, is the grandchild of Holocaust survivors. This information about these characters came out in the 1970s, which was a time in which Americans began to be more conscious of the Holocaust. I found it fascinating that comic books dealt with issues of tolerance in the 1950s and Holocaust memory in the 1970s. Frankly, I never thought of comic books as discussing important issues until I started this course.

What's in a name?

In my last post, "Superman as Metaphor," I briefly discussed how some Jewish actors changed their names in Hollywood. I feel that this topic merits further discussion. Jewish actors changed their names because having a Jewish-sounding name could hinder their careers. Unfortunately, anti-Semitism made some people feel they needed to hide their ethnic background. When I read this in Kaplan's book, I immediately thought of the film "Gentleman's Agreement." This is a 1947 movie starring Gregory Peck and John Garfield and discusses anti-Semitism. In the bonus features on the dvd my mom has, there's a little documentary on various aspects of the film and the story it tells. Sadly, no Hollywood studio wanted to have anything to do with the production of this film because they tried to avoid touchy subjects in their films (they didn't want to rock the boat by discussing anti-Semitism). Finally the film was made. One of the actors in the film, John Garfield, was Jewish - his birth name was Jacob Garfinkle, but he changed it. Having seen this bonus feature in "Gentleman's Agreement" that discussed various Jewish actors changing their names, I was not at all surprised when I read about the name changing in Kaplan's book.

Understanding this portion of "the Jewish experience" (15) makes me also understand why the creators of Superman chose a very "American," boring name for him - Clark Kent. This name has no ethnic identity; it's blah. Frankly, I think that it's unfortunate that many Jewish actors changed their names. Personally, I think Jacob Garfinkle is much more interesting than John Garfield.

Superman as Metaphor

Arie Kaplan's book "From Krakow to Krypton" discusses the role many Jewish individuals played in the comic book industry from its inception. I discovered as I read the first section ("The Golden Age") that the history of comic books is quite fascinating. I must confess I never thought comic books or their history were something that would be interesting, but I have been pleasantly surprised. In fact, I think I would enjoy reading some of the early comic books that are discussed in this section.

Kaplan discusses many aspects of the early comic book industry in this section of his book, including the creation of Superman and how Superman has "recently been seen by pop culture scholars as the ultimate metaphor for the Jewish experience" (13). There are several reasons for this. One is that there is a similiarity between the extermination of people on Superman's home planet and the Holocaust (14). Another is that Superman's real name is Kal-El which approximately translates to "All that God is" in Hebrew (15). A third reason is that the name Superman uses to hide his true identity is Clark Kent, which is an average sounding American name, devoid of any ethnic identity. This third reason is a lens through which to view the Jewish experience because some Jewish people did change their names to hide or downplay their Jewish heritage (anti-Semitism was a problem for Jewish people, including in the area of employment). The example Kaplan mentions is that of Hollywood actors altering their names (15) . I believe the idea of Superman being used to think about the Jewish experience has some merit. However, I feel that it's a stretch to an extent for a few reasons. For starters, the Holocaust had not yet taken place when Superman was first created. Secondly, what exactly is "the Jewish experience"? While there are many aspects of historical life that can be used (and Kaplan does) to discuss this, I do not think it is fair to use such a blanket term. "The Jewish experience" would not have been the same for everyone, and using broad general terms such as that always make me nervous because some important things will be overlooked.

Sam's Mistress

"Cookalein" is a story in Will Eisner's graphic novel "A Contract With God." This story follows the characters in a Jewish neighborhood in New York and their summer vacations. Some characters go out into the country on vacation while others stay in the city. In one family, the wife and children go out to the country and Sam, the husband and father remains in the city. While his family is out of town, Sam spends time with his mistress, Kathleen. In the scene where Sam and Kathleen are together, Kathleen is portrayed wearing a cross necklace and nothing else. I believe Eisner meant the wearing of the cross to convey to the reader that Kathleen is not Jewish. Obviously Eisner felt it was important for the reader to understand that Kathleen is not Jewish.

In spite of what Eisner meant in having Kathleen wear a cross, I read more into it. As a born-again Christian, it had another dimension to me, even if that is not what Eisner intended. Based on her actions (Kathleen is having an affair with a married man and wants him to leave his wife for her) I question whether Kathleen is a Christian even though she is wearing a Christian symbol. I view her as someone who was perhaps raised Christian or "nominally" Christian but never made her faith her own. I wish Eisner had developed her character more because I'm curious about Kathleen's beliefs in light of her actions. I'm not suggesting anyone judge Kathleen's actions; I just wonder about her. Although she has a very small part in the story, she was the most interesting to me.

Interpretation

For our most recent class, we read "A Contract With God." For each of the stories there are many points of interest. However, I am going to focus here on the story from which the book takes it's name. At the end of the story a little boy named Shloime Khreks finds the stone on which Frimme Hersh had documented his contract with God so many years earlier; Shloime signed his name under Frimme's, "thereby entering a contract with God" (Eisner 61). Some of my classmates were debating how the final page is meant to be interpreted in light of the drawing Eisner has done. Some people felt that because of the lamppost with the very bright light illuminating the picture the point is that the boy will not make the same mistakes as Frimme and his contract with God will end positively. Others believed that the dark shadow covering Shloime's face (continuing from the previous page after he discovers the contract with God stone) is meant to state that he will succumb to similiar problems. My intepretation of the picture is that the bright light represents Shloime's excitement at entering the contract with God. He idealizes what this will mean in his life as Frimme Hersh did in his youth. While Eisner never actually states what Shloime thinks the contract will mean, I believe the reader is meant to assume that he has a similiar understanding to that of young Frimme. What Shloime believes to be a positive way of living will eventually fall apart when at some point he perceives God as not holding up His end of the contract. I like how different people can interpret elements of Eisner's story in different ways.