Maus Questions

As I was reading Maus, I found myself thinking a lot about whether or not I would survive were I in Vladek's situation. It seemed as though his resourcefulness got him out of a lot of tight spots. His ability to fix a shoe, managing to get his hands on a spare shirt. I don't know if I would have been able to come up with a lot of the ideas he came up with. My first question is: could he have survived without having been so clever? In other words, does it take a specific kind of person to live through something like the Holocaust? Or is it a matter of luck and being in the right place at the right time?
Additionally, we learn towards the end of volume 2 that even after all he's been through, Vladek has some racial prejudices of his own. During the incident with the hitchhiker, he expresses severe discomfort and a deeply rooted belief in a racial stereotype. After all that Vladek has been through, is it right for him to have these prejudices? Even if it is not, does it make sense? One would think that having been through what he has, Vladek would understand the ridiculousness of racism--and yet he does not even consider African Americans to be of the same species as himself. In a way, he is just like the Nazis who killed his family members. What is it about human nature that makes us so unwilling to let go of our prejudices? Why is it that even after we've been through something like the Holocaust, we do not eliminate racism entirely from our psyches?

Maus II Interpretive Questions

As Dr. Hancock said in class, one of the reasons Art wrote this comic book, was to rebuild his relationship with his father. Throughout the graphic novel, there are many occurrences that portray the tensions between their father and son relationship. For example on page 78, Art and Vladek argue about whether Art should take home Vladek’s leftovers. When Art tells his father to just throw them away, Vladek responds with saying how after the Holocaust, he can’t throw out food. Art then responds with an very rude, and unthoughtful comment, “Then just save the damn Special K in case Hitler ever comes back.” (III, 78) So my question is why does Art treat his father like that even after knowing the horror he had gone through during the Holocaust? Why isn't he more considerate of his father's psychological well being?

Another scenario that struck me was towards the end of Chapter Three, when Art, Vladek, and Francoise are returning from the Catskills. Francoise is driving and along the way, she picks up an African American hitchhiker. Afterwards, Vladek remarks with racist comments “I had the whole time to watch that this shavartser doesn’t steal us the groceries from the back seat!” (III, 93). Art counteracts with anger, asking him why he would be so racist, when he had been the victims of the German’s racism. Thus my second question is why does Vladek react this way? And how does this incident illustrate the different meaning the Holocaust holds for Art and for his father?

Maus I/II - Discussion Questions

First off, I would like to ask whether or not any of you saw or thought there was any differences between the two parts of Maus, both artistically and narratively. In my own personal opinion, the second part of Maus has a much darker feeling to it, in both aspects, as it shows Art's personal struggles with the completion of the book as well as Vladek's struggles through Auschwitz. Why do you think Speigelman decided to change the overall tone of the book, what were his reasons behind it?

My second question has to do with the second part of Maus in particular. In the second chapter of the book, we, as the readers, are introduced to Art's near-psychological breakdown after the highly attributed success of Maus I. The first page of Chapter 2 shows Art having his various flashbacks and remembering the different dates that had been troubling him, such as the deaths of his mother and father, the gassing of the Jews at Auschwitz, and Maus I's publication. Later in the chapter Art shows himself diminished to the stature of a mere child as he goes to speak with his psychologist. Why do you think Speigelman included this episode in his book, showing his difficulties with his life after he finished the first part, what purpose does it give to the story of Vladek and his trials through Auschwitz and his relationship with his son in the later years of his life? Why do you think that the death of his father in 1982 was not revealed to us until now?

Some Questions on Maus

In Maus one immediate aspect that is different from Watchmen is the presentation of the graphic novel, specifically in the type and organization of the panels. While Watchmen sticks more or less to a 3x3 regular grid, Maus' grid layout is considerably more freeform, with panels of all different sizes and positions. Furthermore, there are many times where the illustration of a panel pops out of a panel, or there are illustrations outside the panels, where Watchmen does not use these techniques. According to Alan Moore, author of Watchmen, the use of a regular grid (as opposed to freeform positioning used in Maus) allowed for "...this element of the pacing and visual impact that he could now predict and use to dramatic effect." Do you agree with Moore's statement, or is Maus' style more effective in creating dramatic tension?

Finally, there seems to be an incongruity in the character of Vladek Spiegelman before the Holocaust and after the Holocaust. Is it the Holocaust that has changed Vladek, old age, or his new marriage with Mala? Perhaps it is a combination of all three, although to argue purely one way or another would be interesting.

-- Andrew Lee

identity crisis!

Building off of Jing's comment about pages 41-47, I also do not understand Art's use of the mouse mask. From what I gathered, he is showing his frustration in trying to convey his father's feelings and experiences. Does the mask show that he is having a hard time understanding what his father went through? Or is it just a symbol of remorse? I got really confused when I saw that the psychiatrist also had a mask on, because by the book's "definition" of a mouse, the psychiatrist should be portrayed as a real mouse. After all, he went through the holocaust and Auschwitz as a Jew. Also, on page 47, Art is shown listening to a tape recording of his father. Art is having an extremely difficult time keeping Vladek on track. He ends up yelling at him to finish the story. As we have all noticed, Art does not seem to appreciate his father the way that most of us appreciate ours. Do you think that most of Art's interviews with his father followed similar patterns? It seems like Art did not take any of his father's problems seriously? I feel like he shrugged them off, picturing his father as a hard-headed survivor who only thought of himself. Do you think that this is true? And if so, does this mean that Art exploited his father, using his stories to create a career?

I have some questions, would you please answer them?

Art Spiegelman wrote Maus I & II using the materials taken from his father, Vladek's, interviews, but after I finished reading Maus I & II, I have a vague feeling that Spiegelman doesn't appreciate his father for his life story. I know that sometimes children doesn't know what their parents had to go through in order to reach where they are now and I feel that Spiegelman is the same way. Does Spiegelman really believe that the story is worthwhile to write even though the only reason the estrangement between Spiegelman and his father ended to the write the story? With Jing's post, she wondered why Spiegelman portrayed his father as a such cold and mean man and I wonder about the same thing. Maus I & II portrayed a man who was resourceful and hopeful until the end, so how did Vladek end up to be so bitter after Anja killed herself? If the way that Spiegelman portrayed his father is true to the last fact, then do you think that Vladek should be this bitter since he survived through the Holocaust a lot easier than many Jews?

analytical questions about Maus

I'm really glad that we got to read "Maus" in this class because I read the first installment in sophomore year and I always wondered what happened to Vladek but I never got the chance to read the second installment. After reading the second installment, I've satisfied my curiosity and I really enjoyed reading the series.

With that said, I felt like there were gaps in the story and I didn't completely understand the relationship between the Artie and Vladek. I understand that Artie dislikes his father because his father is too thrifty and cheap. However, he seems too easily annoyed by his father. I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing to be thrifty at times and I can't understand why Artie is not slightly more understanding towards his father. His attitude towards his wife Francoise seems much more gentle. After almost every conversation with his father, Artie complains about how he cannot tolerate the man. Most times, I feel that even Francoise is more understanding towards Vladek than Artie. However, it seemed like Vladek genuinely cared for Artie and in Maus 2, Vladek told Francoise and Artie that they could all go to the grocery store and Artie and Francoise can pick out anything they want to eat. From that statement, I can tell that Vladek loves his son very much because he's always very thrifty, yet he's willing to let Artie buy anything he wants to eat. Although Vladek is annoy sometimes, he's still Artie's father and although he's thrifty, I wouldn't necessary say that he treats Artie badly yet Artie is angry with him all the time and treats him very badly. In order to understand the reason behind Artie's treatment of his father, I think the author needs to reveal more about Artie's past and his childhood.

Another part of the book that striked me as very interesting is the author's portrayal of Artie as a child during his sessions with the psychiatrist and his interviews in the media. For example, during the part of the book where the Artie faces many reporters and people who want to capitalize upon the success of his book, the author draws Artie shrinking from frame to frame until he's a small child crying "Wahhh!" Furthermore during his sessions with the psychiatrist, once again he portrays himself as a small child. I think the author was trying to reveal the psyche of Artie and his emotional state in regards to issues such as his father and the Holocaust. In a lot of ways, I think maybe Artie always saw himself as a child in front of his father. His father seemed to be constantly chiding and treating him as if he was a small child. Furthermore, Artie always expressed confusion regarding his emotions about the Holocaust. Maybe Artie felt like a child who couldn't really comprehend the depth and breadth of the terror of the Holocuast. After all, it probably was difficult for Artie to imagine what the Holocaust was like when he didn't actually go through the Holocaust.

In the last part of the book, I found it interesting and sad that Vladek called Artie "Richieu." It really showed the depth of the impact of the Holocaust on Vladek's life and his inability to forget his first son. At the same time, it might have been hard for Artie to hear his father call himself Richieu. After all, Artie had mentioned that his parents seemed to always like Richieu better and I don't think that's necessarily true. I think it's because Vladek and Anja always felt guilty about the death of their first son and they felt guilty for not being able to care for their son and give him the love that he deserved.