Sorry for the rant...

Here's my problem with today's educational system. The emotion behind all of it is never encouraged. We read a book about slavery and we read a book about the holocaust and we are told to make arguments. We read a book about the holocaust and we are supposed to analytically take it apart and be smart about it. I certainly understand the value in the ability to do this, and i certainly don't expect this particular class to be the front-runner to where I think schooling should be (I think Talissa is wonderful and I almost always enjoy class... though maybe that's just because i'm loud), but there's also a dire necessity for emotions. It's not like they're not there anyway, they're just partitioned away in the corner. You can't ARGUE about someone's emotional reaction to a book (well you can, but you'd be wrong... and a jerk). You can't satisfy people's desires to EXPLAIN everything through taking a thoughtful and honest look at how a book makes you feel--I mean, you can, but you better not turn it in because you'll get a C.

I think it has to do with our culture's tendency to want EVERYthing IMMEDIATELY, ALL THE TIME. Why consider how a book changes you emotionally over time when you can pull apart details and form them into a mildly-amusing, skill-building paper that demonstrates your ability to express your thoughts coherently? Who needs emotions when you have a FIERY INTELLECT?!?!?!!!?

Of course the reason we don't express ourselves emotionally in the world of academics to satiate our desire to fit in. Plus we get to feel superior if other people express emotions as equally important as fancy theses.

Ok. That was getting a little too skeptical. I mean, i had to write something! Did everyone know that the nazis created a new way to speak (which roughly translates to bureaucratese) in which nobody had to take responsibility for anything they did since it was always because of orders? That way everyone could be blameless for committing atrocities: just say someone else made you do it.

and Tran, again:

My friendship bracelet broke. Is that a sign?? As I sit here next to my dorm room's window, staring into the darkness, I am reminded of the novella Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad. My English teacher made my class read that book because she said that it is powerful and we will encounter it again in college. I didn't take her word for it, but here we are, reading (or read past tense) Equiano. Theory Toolbox even dedicates two three paragraphs to Conrad and his novella in the "Differences" chapter. For a story less than 100 pages, it has some pretty complicated ideas that confuzzled us all. I don't know if any of you guys and gals have read it yet, but I would still like to discuss it. There's basically a summary in Theory Toolbox pages 161-162... but... anyways so Conrad was a "white man" during the time that Africa was being colonized by the Europeans. Maybe it was his word choice or something, but people called him a racist. I dont' think he was racist because he wrote it to expose the evils of colonization and how the Europeans became corrupted, but Chinua Achebe wrote Things Fall Apart in response to Conrad. He showed that Africans had a culture, and they were civilized and content. Until the Europeans came along and then their lives began to fall apart. (good book btw) What I noticed was that in Things Fall Apart, the style was very simple, with some cultural words, and easy to read. It had the effect that Achebe wanted. I compared this to Equiano, which was lengthy and, excuse me, boring. Halfway through writing this blog, I realized I shouldn't be comparing the two because they were written in different time periods. They are both effective in helping the authors' cause. Now I lost my train of thought. It's funny how I get riled up about something, then I fall flat on my face. So... no, Equiano is not the greatest possibility of our times. But that phrase itself is ambiguous. Now I'm confused.

uh-oh. I forgot to post Tran's last blog entry. My bad.

I hate blogging because I don't get the thrill of seeing my name as the person who posted the blog. Darn google for its complicated ways. So... my building played a game called "Erhmanopordy" (a hybrid between the game Jeapordy and the building's name) which pitted each floor against one another. Reminded me of that first page in Maus when Vladek mentioned something about locking friends up together for weeks without food. The floors were playing for free Gypsy's pizza, and dang, did it turn foul. The extent some people go to for some free food and to win... tsk tsk. Whatever happened to being friendly neighbors? Anywho, Pinky and the Brain... awww I am forever in their debt. Because of them, I memorized the different parts of the brain and the nervous systerm and got extra credit for Physiology in high school.

I don't think I will ever get tired of talking about Maus. Instead of pouring our ideas onto an essay, I say we share them to enlighten one another. I always like hearing about other people's opinions. There's so much more to interpret! I'm being optimistic =] I really want to read Maus II. I went to the Cal student store on my way back to my dorm to look for it. I spent an hour wandering around. Why didn't I just ask the information desk? I don't know. Instead, I ended up reading a book about Dr. Seuss and his "Seussisms." Oh, the places I will go... It was pretty inspirational.

At 2 in the morning, I remember how I used to be afraid of every little noise I hear back at home if I stayed up this late. I was especially afraid after reading "All Quiet on the Western Front" and watching "Schindler's List." Anything that is borderline horror-ish or mentions anything of that sort makes me nervous. I was scared of that one old Nickalodeon cartoon "AHHH Real Monsters!" So it was interesting for me to discover that Maus isn't giving me any nightmares. (I probably jinxed myself and end up having nightmares tonight. If I do, I shall inform the class tomorrow, or today.) I think I fooled myself with the images into thinking that yea, this is just a story that happened to animals. I know that this was reality, but I just can't fathom the truth. It's too scary for me. I prefer to live in a bubble.

This is in response to Shaunt's post about nervous ticks:

I also noticed Grossman's habit of pushing up his glasses. It was something about the precise way he pushed them up so delicately that caught my attention. It just shows that something so simple and everyday can be a beautiful movement. I think its beauty comes from the fact that it was not intended to be performed in any way. In my modern dance class we spend one day working on a gesture exercise. We had around twelve everyday gestures (like waving at someone or eating food) and we performed them rhythmically in beat to create movement. It was interesting because everyone had their own particular way of gesturing. Once these gestures were performed in class they did not seem like everyday gestures anymore, but part of choreography instead.

Shaunt's remark about pushing up the glasses reminded me of a photograph I once took of my friend. I took him to the photography studio in Wurster and snapped a roll of film entirely dedicated to him and one of them caught him in the act of pushing his glasses up. Of all thirty eight pictures, this was the one photograph I decided to print. It captures him in his natural state, frozen in a moment of time where he is completely himself. If you guys want to see it, you can view is on my very incomplete website with very poor photo-quality: http://jeannie.art.googlepages.com/mainportraits.html

look at me, im so pretty

Burning Down Paris, freaking awesome. I’ve heard the name before and I’ve heard about the 80’s black drag queen movies, but never realized they were the same thing. I was particularly moved by the one guy who was always doing his makeup in the mirror. One of the old-school guys. He really seemed upset that the balls were changing and becoming something new. Reminiscing about the old days in the 60’s and 70’s where they dressed as Vegas showgirls and made their own costumes, he spoke quite poorly about the new state of the balls. Focus on designer clothing, too many categories, too many people, too much change. But with that, I could help but see him as a little hypocritical. He’s afraid and upset by change? That should be what every drag queen wants. Change of society’s mentality about them hopefully even gaining acceptance. But maybe that’s exactly what it’s not about. He doesn’t want acceptance. Dressing in drag would be no fun if it didn’t elicit a response. This is why I strongly disagree with that article we read. Drag-queens aren’t trying to emulate woman in order to hide and feel powerless, it’s done for that show, that “look at me! Don’t you think I’m crazy!!?”

Has anyone read today's SF Chronicle? I myself haven't, but I did glance at the headlines since a lone yellow Chronicle kiosk sits by my morning bus stop. At the top left hand corner of the front page I saw a feature about a "new cut" of Blade Runner. When will that movie ever leave me alone? We watched the opening scenes of it in my history class, and I my professor's having yet another lecture on it for me to look forward to in the very near future. Right before finals! Oh, joy. I'm sorry, but I think one fast-forwarded and one real-time viewing of that Ridley Scott movie is all I can take, let alone critical analysis on it. While making up my own dialogue to it would be fun, I must admit the few bits of dialogue are inadvertently hilarious. However, the wait for that hilarity to happen is too long for me, as I am much too impatient. And I still can't get over the scene when _________ (the weird replicant who almost kills Deckard [why did they have to change all the characters' names?]) smashes Tyrell's head in with his fingers. What's worse is that dove flying away in slow-mo. What the hell? Wasn't that symbolism already overused by the '80s? All I can say is at least I don't have to be subjected to Ichi the Killer film history criticism.

I know i have two consecutive blogs but i think that i needed an extra one from some previous week. I was reflecting on this class in particular as i was trying to procrastinate this upcoming paper. The theme of this class really made it appealing. Though some books were not a favorite of mine, Blade Runner and Frankenstein, everything really came together in the end and i understand why we read all of these books. I think that my favorite book was by far Maus and i think that when i get through with finals i will read Maus 2. The other thing is that i wanted to thank you Talissa for all the help throughout the semester and being so good with emails and just always being available.
I learned so much more in this class than i did in my R1A class and i had a lot more fun doing it. Im still going to say that im one of those science people but i can more confidently say that i can now write a decent paper, analyze text and clearly get my thoughts across in written words.

I cant believe that the school semester is coming to an end so fast. With the end of the semester apporaching i find myself bogged down with numerous papers. In terms of this last R1B paper im kinda excited. Its way better than Frankenstein. Maus has presented a way of conveying literature to the public. I know i talked about comics and literature in my last blog but i thinking a little. If we presented great works of literature in the same way that Art Speigelman presented a story about the Holocaust would be have a more educated, aware society? By presenting text with pictures would we be able to get kids to read more? I dont want to take away from the importance of reading and vocabulary but in terms of literature awareness i think we would see a much bigger interest. If an author is able to covey a story about one of the most tragic events in our World's history and still be taken seriously then why cant more authors do the same?

My shame is unspeakable

I really should stop working on blog nights. After I lapse into the Zen state necessary for masterful card-swiping, I quickly forget all about my homework. These blog posts aren't the only thing I forgot about tonight—it's really nothing personal, Hybrid Writing Blog! Please take me back! No answer... that hurts. Before I convince whoever happens to read this that I've completely lost my mind (I haven't), I'd like to say that I haven't gotten a full night's sleep in about a week and I'm currently reeling from some baaaad sushi. If whoever reads this (read: Talissa) takes nothing else from this muddy stream of consciousness, please take this most earnest exhortation: don't eat at Tako Sushi. The last time I ate there I came out unscathed, but the time before that was very nearly murder by Poke Roll. I like to think the proprietors are involved in a vast and intricate conspiracy to assassinate me, but I don't have enough paranoia to keep that idea afloat. Also, it just seems more logical that they're simply unscrupulous and more interested in profiting on students' strong stomachs and weak culinary standards. After all, they print "God Bless You!" at the bottom of their receipts! How bad could they be? Very, it turns out. I thought I'd play it safe tonight by avoiding rolls with raw fish, but it didn't matter. The soft-shelled crab in my Spider Roll must've died on its own, and well before I was born.

So with that elaborate and unnecessarily detailed explanation of why I'm not at my absolute best right now, I proceed to the rest of the post. After all, I'm not here to make excuses; I'm here to make a freeform prose composition at least loosely related to the class. Well I referenced the blog title earlier in this post, and I'm sure that counts. And if not, whatever. Frankly, I'm sick of talking about Maus. I like it and have come to respect it as a work of art and storytelling, but enough is enough. Eight to ten pages and several class discussions have given me a bit of a Maus overdose. Then again, I may be unfairly channeling my weariness and mild food poisoning at Maus. If so, sorry Maus. In any case, I'd rather talk about something else. But now I've painted myself into a corner because I've already written about every other work we've read, and would actually sooner Maus than any of them. Fine, talk about Maus I will.

I don't think that all of Spiegelman's animal metaphors are as well thought out as they could've been. I like the use of mice to represent Jews because it's provocative, subversive, and effective. Having Germans be cats and Americans be dogs follows pretty logically from that and also gives a clever nod to the power hierarchy of the era. But what of the other representations? Poles as pigs? I'm not even sure I understand what Spiegelman is going for there, but I feel like it should offend me. Is he saying that Poles are greedy? Dirty? Delicious for gentiles but off-limits to Jews? The metaphor just doesn't quite hold up. Pigs are also renowned—among domesticated beasts, at least—for their intelligence. Surely Spiegelman isn't attempting to compliment the people who sold his people out. Then what? I can't really think of any other obvious pig associations, and something obscure would defeat the purpose of having such a heavy-handed metaphor in the first place. French frogs and Swedish moose? I call that giving up. Making the French into frogs is just making an ethnic slur literal. Not impressive. Swedish moose? Well, what other animal lives in Sweden? The strangest of all are the British fish. Is that some kind of nod to their naval power? Their drinking culture? Did Speigelman even mean for it to have any symbolism? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that the pressure to represent every nationality with a different animal must've forced Spiegelman to make these somewhat iffy decisions. Metaphors don't come for free, it seems.

On the Issues of Essays

Well I'm not sure if we were given a topic or whether we are supposed to write an entry, but just in case:

In class we spent most of the time editing essays so I'll devote this to other essays i have edited. My skills in creatively coming up with a topic for this week seem very lacking, whatever. My cousin is sending in her college applications this week and she asked me to go over them with her. I am probably the worst person to do this with since I know nothing about parallel structure, verb agreement, or where commas are supposed, to, go. But I hoped to try and help her with the big picture and reading her essay I was 1) very jealous that she was a better writer than me and 2) surprised about the content in her essay, she revealed something that I had not known about her. That got me thinking how much of anyone do we actually know? I think people make it seem like we are all similarly confident but behind that veneer lies a still more conforming person who is unsure whether or not everything they do is right. Who knows what's inside each person that deeply affected their past and now their present selves and how little we know...but these are all Berkeley thoughts. Deep thoughts from the deep: sri sri kunal...aaauuummmmmm

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.

weird picture maus II

Ok, so I don’t know if you guys have read Maus II (you really should, it’s good, and, it’s where it’s at… I mean, most my paper is based on that one) but on the third to last page, Art includes a picture of Vladek. But get this… He’s wearing the striped Auschwitz prison uniform! Vladek tells us that he passed a photo shop that had a prison uniform that people could get their pictures taken in as a souvenir. How FREAKING WEIRD is that. Now, I’m all for getting your picture from Splash-Mountain. But if Splash-Mountain gas, shot, murdered, raped, maimed, (the list goes on) millions of your brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, children, friends, countrymen (the list goes on) would you buy a picture? Wouldn’t the ID tattoo and the indelible memories of pain and suffering be enough of a souvenir? Now, I’m all for remembering the Holocaust so that such atrocities will never be repeated, but Vladek looks quite stoic and, dare I say? Proud to be wearing the uniform. The whole idea kind of goes against the scene where art talks to his therapist about how if surviving is honorable, then is dying dishonorable? Personally, I’m a bit outraged.


shaunt

darn biased stories

First off, I can't help but wonder how much of Maus is true. It's not the comic presentation that causes me to question is authenticity of the text, but rather the way that Spiegelman himself tells the story. There are many points in the book where it seems like IF this story is represented as it occurred, that Vladek seemed to tailor his story more to what Art was looking for to write his comic book than to really just tell his own story. And you wonder if this was a kind gesture on Vladek's part or a hinderance to the actual Holocaust narrative. It kind of reminds me of how a movie based on a book would go. Yeah sure, you get the overall plot going on still and it's BASICALLY the same thing, but a lot of little things are cut out in order to make the movie a hit and sensational. There could be a parallel drawn in this to the way that Maus is formulated. For all we know, Vladek as well as Art could have been editing or "tweaking" the story as need be to make it more appealing to readers and make it a better selling product. True, the fundamental story may still be there, but the way that things are emphasized and also as importantly, DE-emphasized may skew the way that the story is received by readers. I feel like the comic book form, because you get visual images as well as the layered narrative, is getting at the idea that this story is not really all so much another Holocaust narrative to be shared with the world but rather a story that's rooted at a much deeper and personal level in relation to Spiegelman himself.

Hmm, seems like I'm well on my way to sounding like many of the other literary criticisms already out on Maus.

nervous ticks

Nervous ticks…
In Maus, Art depicts himself as constantly smoking cigarettes while writing. This obviously must be very important to him. Rarely there is a scene of him drawing without one in his mouth. On a slightly hilarious parallel, Austin Grossman seemed to have quite the tick of his own. About every two seconds, he would push his glasses up. Even multiple times in a row. Now, as a person who wears glasses, I quickly took note of this interesting habit. I myself at a younger and insecure portion of my life tried to change the way that I pushe up my glasses. I went for a cooler, hipper thumb and middle finger on the two sides rather than the seemingly geeky index on the nose bridge approach. But I simply could not maintain the ‘cool’ style. I would always revert back to my natural motion. This of course, makes me think that Austin doesn’t even realize what he is doing, nor does Spiegelman realize that he is smoking. What is it about writing that brings out these nervous ticks. Be it a toe-tap, glasses push, cigarette (probably not so many of us anymore), or whatever. Is our body simply uncomfortable while writing? Implying that the activity is quite unnatural and we are subcounciously trying to jump out of our skin? Or perhaps these ticks are important to develop a proper rhythm in our writing. As I sit here, in the deepest basement of moffit, I can see people sniffing, twisting their hair, biting their nails, cracking their necks, each person with a movement and style as individual as their writing voice. I call upon all of us, develop a unique tick, make it work, and most importantly, make it your own!

Two post-scripts

I. First, I apologize for making anyone who reads this schitzophrenic and selfconcious of every body-movement made while writing… and…
II. How rad the austin’s glasses push is. I think someday he’ll figure out a way to fight crime with it.

shaunt

I'm still stunned by that anyone would think Maus to be a piece of anti-Semitic work. There's just no way people should think this way. Spiegelman, a Jewish man living in New York City with a wife who converted to his religion, a man whose parents barely survived the Holocaust, could not possibly be anti-Semitic. It just doesn't make sense. Sure, the epigraph at the beginning of Maus is a quote from Hitler, but the rest of the story rejects and effectively disproves that outrageous, alarming Hitler tried to make to justify his onslaught of terror. I can't even think of words to describe anything close to what the Holocaust was like and how destructive and far-reaching and inhumane it was. For Spiegelman himself to have that Nazi mentality while putting on the Jewish mask would not only make him hypocritical but also evidently make him one hell of an illusionist. If he were living a double life as a Jewish man who created one of the most moving Holocaust stories only to be covering his self-hating anti-Jewish mentality, then he must be incredibly gifted in the arts of ruse. Or, we as a group unfortunately suffer from gullibility. Are we too trusting? I think not, but I also believe we want to see the good in people. In some people, it's easier to see the good than in others. After all, Hitler, however dire the consequences, was a brilliant orator. He was able to sway the masses. Some people just have charm more disarming and more powerful than one's deep-seated beliefs. Just a few weeks ago, one of my friends mentioned how much she despises Mike Huckabee's political platform, yet hearing him speak makes it impossible to hate him. This, coming from a political science major and uber liberal, simply baffles her good sense. While it baffles me that Maus could be read as anti-Jewish material, it baffles me that I might be playing into the hands of a guy who's outcharmed my better judgment.

Ok, so over the break I watched at least 12 hours of Seinfeld DVD's, therfore this post will be done as if it were taking place in the booth at Monks with Jerry, George, and Elaine.

Badibadib bawn bown bi bown

Jerry: So what’s the deal with all these bribes in the holocaust? I mean, why do you need a gold watch in Auschwitz? Are you trying to find a new girlfriend?

Kramer: You never know (funny face/head bobble).

George: It couldn’t have been that bad there. I could really see myself in Auschwitz. You don’t have to decide what to wear everyday, the Germans give you something to do, and you never have to see your parents. Talk about heaven.

Elaine: You know George, you might be right. With all the starvation, suffering, and misery, you’d be a real catch.

Ok, running the risk of becoming even more offensive, I’ll stop the Seinfeld dialogue.

But seriously, What’s the deal with the bribes in Auschwitz? When so many people have so little left to live for, how do ‘valuables’ still hold any value? An argument could be that they can be used to bribe the guards. But this doesn’t hold up since the guards would seemingly kill you and take your gold as soon as you offer it to them. Why would the guard risk helping a Jew if they could simply steal their valuables. And if one could not bribe the guards, then what do other inmates want with the money? I can’t believe that people would be saving this stuff for when they get out. ‘ohhh, if I play my cards right, then I’ll totally have this sweet watch when I get out of Auschwitz.” Yea right.

vladek=jerk v. 2

But on a continuation of my previous post, if Vladek is such an ass, then why does Mala stick around? Vladek treats her like dirt, constantly tires to control her, and what does she get out of the situation? Monetary support. Perhaps she has no other choice. Too old to work she most likely cannot support herself. But what happened to her previous husband (I think that it should be safe to assume that she at one point in the past was married to someone. Perhaps he died in the Holocaust?) But even more strangely, Art thanks Mala in the Thanks section of the book. ‘Thanks to Mala Spiegelman for her help in translating Polish books and documents, and for wanting Maus to happen.’ Strange, Mala even took Vladek’s name. I know that the older generation is more traditional, but from the portrayal we get, Mala and Vladek hardly seem like a married couple. Vladek is even buried next to Anja, as seen in the final image of Maus II. Where does that leave poor, poor Mala? Nowhere. It’s from this that I begin to wonder how much Art exaggerates the asshole nature of his father. Perhaps he laid the caricature on thick. I don’t think that he has ever claimed that his book is realistic and cartoons generally don’t play much with subtlety, rather the characters are big and bold and have well defined traits.

Vladek=Jerk

What’s the deal with Vladek? Why is he such an asshole? All the time... It really starts from the beginning. What happened to Lucia Greenburg? Vladek was going out for three or four years. That seems like a pretty long time (especially back then [didn’t people get married right quick?]). On page 15, she even tells Vladek that they should get engaged; he pretends to ignore her and says he should take her home. Now that is a pretty big slap in the face. Especially considering that Lucia is in her nightgown and Vladek is putting his clothes back on! Scandalous!!!!!!!!!! But he doesn’t stop there. A small text square (indicating Vladek’s contemporary voice) say that ‘her family was nice, but had no money, even for a dowry.’ How could be such a jerk? I first wondered maybe this was his current misery mind putting a spin on his past, but the fact is that he didn’t marry this girl for three or four years! Obviously he had some trepidations and the only one Art shows us is how his father didn’t want to marry into her poor family. But, at the drop of a hat, he has no reservations about marrying Anja in order to get to her rich parents. I don’t think that the holocaust caused the issues with money that Vladek has. Perhaps it exacerbated them a little bit, but they’ve been there all along.

Maus and Pinky and the Brain

Don’t read if you like the cartoon strip Cathy

OK, this might be a stretch but... did any one else used to religiously follow pinky and the brain? I have no finer memories than when I used to come home from school, make myself a huge bowl of Coco Puffs and plop down in front of the TV to watch not only the infamous Brain try to take over the world with his hilariously gentle minded cohort Pinky, but also Beast Wars (a newer generation Transformers show (all computer generated graphics) where the characters are robots that can transform into various animals). But let us not forget Animaniacs, Garfield, Chip and Dale Rescue Rangers, and countless other animal based cartoon shows that populated the Saturday morning lineup. In fact, every single cartoon I used to watch as a kid involved animals except those based on pre-existing superhero books. I wonder what has stemmed this fascination with animal cartoons. But, finishing my daily post-school afternoon cartoons, my sugar rush unsatiated by only two meager half hour shows, I would religiously read the comic section in the newspaper. Strangely enough, nearly all of these feature human characters and not animals. It makes me wonder what causes the divide. I guess it must do with the target audience. Do children love animals more than adults? Since I’ve learned everything I know about the working world from Office Space, I’ll assume that comics in the newspaper don’t feature animals because a fat, ugly, cat annoying named Cathy, who is perpetuating her fatness, ugliness, and annoying tendencies by screaming about her fatness while eating carton after carton of ice-cream wouldn’t look as nice pinned up on one’s cubicle as a real human version of the aforementioned.

(ps. Yes, this devolved into an anti-Cathy rant, but rightfully so! There are too many bad comics in the newspaper. Pinky and the Brain even had an episode denouncing Family Circus! Such genius and wit)

mice or men?

One thing that stuck out at me was the very human-like hand of the spirit of Vladek's dead grandfather on p57. The dead grandfather is rendered as a mouse, but it has an abnormally large human hand protruding from the folds of his robe. And what on earth is that square thing on it'd head. Is it part of its hat?

Anyways, after this observation of the hand, I began noticing that the mice in Maus are not really mice. It is true that they have mouse heads but the rest of their body is pretty much human. They all have hands with five fingers instead of claws. Their bodies are shaped like humans too. On p15, Lucia is depicted in a sexy nightgown where we can see her ample cleavage and voluptuous womanly body. I don't think female mice can have cleavage. Also, not many of the mouse pictures depict the characters with tails. The only one I could find was on p17 where you can see Anja's tail in her photograph. Do the mice walk around with their tails stuffed inside of their pants? I imagine that it would be very uncomfortable.

So what does this mean? That mice with tails are not attractive? Maybe it's Spiegelman's way of humanizing the mice so that we do not forget that in the real Holocaust, real people died. Perhaps he wanted to introduce his concept of depicting his characters as mice and cats, but he still wanted an element of humanness to exist to evoke sympathy from human readers. Or maybe Spiegelman thought it was just easier to draw human bodies doing things instead of mouse bodies.