Maus and Men: The Power of Icons and the Narrative Form

The stirring story of a man relaying his time as a Jew in Europe in the late 30's and early 40's would normally be a compelling enough tale. Add to that tale his time spent in what is widely considered the most brutal of all the concentration camps of the time and for most people the tale would start to seem familiar, if not histrionic. However, the graphic novel Maus takes events from human history and makes them seem fresh through a few very simple techniques. The story manages to relate to the reader through the use of icons and a, despite it's flaws, very strong narrative. Exploring techniques discussed by Scott McCloud and Hayden White, one can shed some light on why this story works and how without a few devices would not be nearly as effective or affecting.

One of the most powerful -- and undoubtedly defining -- techniques that Art Spiegalman uses in Maus is instead of his characters being humans, they are represented by Mice (Jews), Cats (Nazis) and other various animals such as pigs. Scott McCloud forges very early on in his work Understanding Comics an understanding of the power of the icon. He argues that the icon lets the reading immerse themselves in the story. More importantly, the reader pays much less attention to the messenger and more attention to the message. Now that the humans are mice, one is able to insert themselves into a situation that many would before not been able. There are two major problems people face when reading about the Holocaust: one being the otherness of Europeans and specifically Jews and the other being how distanced we are from the events. To expound, a non-Jewish American will have trouble placing their family in the situation that Spiegalman's father experienced. It is not because people are anti-Semitic. It is simply they are not one of "us". The Jews of Europe during WWII are very much "the other." In making the Jews mice and allowing the audience to insert themselves and loved ones into these characters, this story is no longer a story of Jews and Germans, but a story of humans. Secondly, we are so distanced from the events of WWII and they have been so romanticized by pop culture over the last 70 years, that we have completely objectified the events. A survivor's tale could be casually referred to as "yet another Holocaust story" because of an over saturation with this type of narrative. Once again, the iconization -- i just invented that word if it isn't already one -- lends the story relevance.

Another thing that lends the story relevance is the gripping narrative on historical events. While almost all Holocaust pieces have a similar narrative, the presentation of this particular one is divided into two parts. While some would argue this fragments the narrative and may leech some of it's meaning, I would disagree. I believe that, while Maus lacks a clear beginning, middle and end, there is still a continuity as the story moves forward. Hayden White says in his paper The Content of Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation, "[a]nd it would follow that the absence of narrative capacity or a refusal of narrative indicates an absense or refusal of meaning." Essentially he is saying without a narrative, historic events have no intrinsic meaning. The meaning lies in the story. Historic events mean something because of the stories we tell about them -- stories such as Maus.

So we see that Spiegalman's put together a touching and unique story. He made this story relevant by changing the way we look at an all-too-familiar historic event. Not to save the Holocaust was not a gripping, moving event and almost any survivor tale would be a worth narrative. However, a fresh look at the events providing the ability to insert ourselves into the situation via icons has been invaluable to this narrative and to me personally.

Maus + White

WAAAAAAAAAH?

I am making an outline. I will put words here. This is a placeholder. In the meantime here is a dog playing a sprinkler:

Blood in the Gutter

In Scott McCloud's book, Understanding Comics he uses the term the "Gutter." Very simply put, the gutter is the space between the panels. More specifically, it is the space where all the action happens. The gutter has a very close relation to another term McCloud uses -- closure. Essentially, McCloud argues that in order for two pictures in sequence to mean anything, it is up to the audience to fill in the space in the gutter and create closure. The two images to the right aren't very humorous by themselves, but with the appropriate amount of closure, with the audience filling in the blanks, they have more meaning and are more effective.

While the example McCloud suggests may be a bit more dramatic -- one panel of a man being chased by another man wielding an axe, juxtaposed next to a city scape with scream of terror -- the point remains the same. Telling an story through images, requires the audience to fill in the gutter.

Have to do a Q&A section here soon. Not sure what image I would like to write about. I'm just so flipping smart that I could virtually expound on anything. You're all lucky to even be reading this.

The Necessity of the Dream

As long as necessity is socially dreamed, dreaming will remain a social necessity. The spectacle is the bad dream of a modern society in chains and ultimately expresses nothing more than its wish for sleep. The spectacle is the guardian of that sleep. - Guy Debord

In this complicated aphorism, Guy Debord discusses the effect the spectacle has on society. He suggests that the spectacle creates a dream that differs from reality. This dream has actually replaced reality. The purpose of this reality is to be used for control. As a Marxist, Guy specifically attributes this to major corporations in capitalism, though this is not always the case with the spectacle.

I was going to say something really awesome. You would've been awestruck by the awesome. You're missing out.

Kthxbai.