So I must agree with Patrick on the “intellectual” papers about Maus. I’m still trying to clean the vomit out of my laptop. Yea, the first one is great, hell, maybe even the second if you’re lucky. The story goes like this, there are two types of Maus papers found in the 90’s. a)OMG!!! It’s not a history of the Holocaust, it’s a history of the recording of the history of the Holocaust. OMGOMG (I feel that this type of writing is permissible as we are writing in a weB LOG, also, note the number of OMG’s, this will make itself evident for later) Art is upset with his father? But he was in the Holocaust, how could you be upset with him? I mean he suffered so much for you! Are you ungrateful? YES, get over it. The second type is flattering to Art’s style of drawing, which is totally cool. Different size frames, continuous pictures crossing frames, etc. But again, how many papers can be written on the same thing? I mean, don’t literary journals have referees? Ok, so as I’m scooping up the vomit, I’ve been reading the critiques in chronological order, starting from those closest to the release of Maus I, then BAM 9/11. Ok, big day, lots of suffering etc. Art writes a book about his experience during 9/11 (did I mention he lives in lower Manhattan?). The academic community proceeds to set its death grip on the subject. OMGOMGOMGOMG Art has a traumatic experience he can finally call his own! Aren’t we all happy? Let’s write a million papers on it.
Which brings me to my point… If the academic community has such a hard time coming up with fresh and original ideas about the subject, where do we stand? Good luck everyone.
*Disclaimer*
I must apologize to those who have or ever will contribute to literary journals. This post was made merely in jest and I assure you that the scientific community is no better (if not worse) at publishing copy after copy of the same boring drivel.