Last One

I suppose this is a place for last and final thoughts on Judaism and Comic Books.  Here goes..... I have to admit before the class I did not care for comics or even read them at all.  Even though we have read and referrenced them extensively I have to say I prefer graphic novels.  That said Contract with God was my favorite graphic novel in the course. 
It has been an amazing journey to see how artwork and words come together to form memories, opinions, and lost sentiments.  Learning to take an in depth look at every angle and the nuances made by authors I think will have an impact on my close reading overall.  There is truly so much to say that I do not even know where to begin.  I suppose the readings as well as the blog exceeded my expectations.  I have not had a course with blog assignments before and I enjoyed hearing thoughts on the reading materials (and their concepts) from peers. 
I can't help but find myself wandering into the graphic novel section at the bookstores and library.  I can say honestly I would have never given such mediums another thought.  After the story of Maus and Contract with God I have gained a new respect for graphic novels and the rich artwork they present.  For all of the ways I am familiar with studying the holocaust I have to say through the artwork and storytelling it was one of the most shocking.  I think we have all been so de-sensitized to the holocaust that few things really hit us anymore or shock us even.  I have to say that I was once again shocked and intrigued by the question of memory once more.  After so much having been said, what more could there possibly be? A lot more than I thought possible!  

Megillat Part 2-Questions

For me there were more questions than anything in the second part of Megillat Esther.  If anyone can answer please do.  First what is going on with the string on the fingers on pg 120? On the same page is the nudity necessary on the left side of the page? Perhaps this is where knowing the hebrew may be of help. 
More questions on pg 134, what is the importance of the symbol with the babies in the right corner? Is this perhaps a symbol of ancestry or hint at future lineage?  Again on page 135, the statue breaking with the female figuring emerging, perhaps the revealing of Esther in her true form as Judean? 
Finally pg 146 and 147, the animal like characters at their feet are made of several different animals with multiple cultural significances.  I can't help but feel that if I knew what the Hebrew on them both said perhaps it would give a clue.  Any thoughts on these creatures?  Dragons (even in part) have no real place in Biblical literature that I know of.  Just a bit perplexed!

Megillat Esther

I enjoyed this graphic novel possibly more than any of the others (with the exception of Maus).  I have seen quite a few of adaptations/interpretations of the book of Esther especially in graphic novels and even in a movie.  Even though the script kind of threw me I have to say after I got used to it and read past the first portion of the book it didn't bother me quite so much.  If anything I think it adds to the story and provides a certain authenticity not possible with other books done only in english. 
Particular to this book I found the depiction of Esther to be interesting and very realistic.  She was curvacious and closer to what a female of the time period and location would have looked like.  I find it interesting that most other books and even movies depict her as dainty and even kind of short (in childrens stories).  Another graphic novel I am reading she is closer to pictures of Roman women.  I have noticed though that the type of story or way the author is telling it makes a large impact on the form of her character.  It is interesting to spend time comparing her drawings in several adaptations as they give way to the authors interpretation and message he/she is trying to convey.
I am very interested to see how the next portion of the story plays out (even though I know the story well).  I would be very interested to know the Hebrew which is alongside the english given that sometimes subtle hints are lost in translations and interpretations.  It would be very interesting to see what the author is not puting in the novel (as far as the Hebrew goes) and examine why this may be.  Overall, great read!

The burden of a generation

I found a particular idea when reading BOS that I found interesting.  On pg 203 Kahn mentions that in the graphic novella "Speaking of the Devil" the child of the angel and demon are expected to bring about a great change.  It is expected that the child which breaks the norm and chaalenges taboos will be the beginning of a new era.  As I thought about this it occured that we do this a lot.
Placing all of our hopes and aspirations on the next generations is common place given taht we assume everything will be better in the next generation to make sure the child/children are successful.  We place a great burden on the next generation that many times they cannot fill.  I remember being in high school and graduating in the year 2000, it was such a big deal to be the new hope of the new millenium.  The pressure was especially from families and communities and even society.  I can recall newspapers interviewing me and my classmates and telling us that in ten years they would again interview us and measure our progress.  While my next interview has yet to occur what about when it does? Why can't we take charge of the present instead of waiting for the next generation to make the world a better place?
What will be the end results of societal pressures on upcoming generations? What does this say for our faith, do we not have faith that we can change the world by also doing unto others as prescribed for Christians, Jews, Muslims, and all other faiths? How faithful are we if we do not have faith in ourselves?

Gays in the Arab world

In Bos Raab speaks of gays in the Arab world and the tossing of previous notions but there is a lot to be said about this new coming out.  Homosexuality happens in the Middle East as much as the U.S. (if not more) however it has shunned and hidden for quite sometime.  Being homosexual is far less accepted than in the U.S. and it is most definitely not a regular topic of conversation.  The drawings on page 228 really invoke a lot of thoughts.
I suppose at first I found the drawings offensive and then I thought about what the author was really trying to say.  Even though it is prescribed in Leviticus for man not to lay with man, what if you are a believer? Can you believe in a merciful God and be homosexual? Why not?
Another topic that comes up is gays and the military.  In this case it is the IDF but this is a hot topic for debate far and wide.  It is interesting to see the same questions being raised regarding homosexuals and military service in the U.S. perspective and applied to Israel and the Middle East.  In my opinion as much as the U.S. truly is not ready to handle this question the Arab world is even more so.  The religious consequences and cultural conflict that could arise would be immense.  Some things are left better unsaid and I think now this may be the case.  Perhaps another year or even decade but I do not truly believe that the Middle East is ready to handle the questions regarding homosexuality.

Star light, Star bright....

For all that I did not care for Jobnik one page really hit me like no other.  The picture with the stars and the jets envokes so many thoughts and feelings.  When I first looked at the picture it was neat but the more I looked at it I couldn't help but feel the enormity of the situation.  Being in the desert in the middle of the night (especially once you're away from camp and/or civilization) gives you a feeling of awe and yet a sudden pang of fear.  You realize that you could get lost in the vast desert.  Then again you feel at peace because you have never seen the stars so bright.  Even for the unfaithful there is an overwhelming trust in the powers (or power) that be. 
I think for Miriam it was probably much of the same feeling but I also think she was feeling small and lost among everything else.  I think at times, and even most of the time, she felt insignificant.  It seems that there was this great puzzle but yet she didn't fit anywhere in it.  I believe Miriam also felt overwhelmed by the current events both in her life and globally.  Everything for her became so real so fast and even though there was the everyday there was also the extraordinary fact of when (politically) that everyday was and where it was.
Given so much criticism for the IDF and Israel as a whole the novel brings to light that at the end of the day we are all under the same stars.  Maybe in part that is what Miriam was saying.  We may all come from different places and faiths but we all sleep under the same moon and wish on the same stars.

Jobnik!

I have to say I was dreading a blog about Jobnik.  I really feel that I don't have much to say.  The only thing I can say is that it was realistic in that soldier life is not all cool stuff and bombs going off.  In fact the every day of it is often boring and mundane.  I think the story could have said so much more.  I didn't enjoy any real significant portions of the novel.
I did not like the art and I can usually find something about drawings to at least comment but the roundedness of all the characters (for me) just made the story seem so much less realistic.  I think that the story did an excellent job of confusing the reader and even that on some level that was part of the point.  I don't think the reader was meant to fully understand much of the story and was to some extent meant to come away with a feeling that would leave him or her wondering and wanting to know just a bit more.
For me the reading was hard to follow and largely unclear.  I have to say I even feel like it was a waste of my time.  I am not sure if I should read it again and look at it closer or whether to take my face opinion and just move on.  I would be interested to read more of Miriams work, it could very well give me some incite to her style and perhaps help me to understand Jobnik better!

Shaytlan

  The Rabbi's Cat may be inadvertently hinting at something that is just beginning to interest scholars and this is the Djinn.  I know it's a stretch but hear me out.  The Djinn are beings which Muslims believe can be good or evil.  They are nearly the equivalent of an angel or demon and they are very much creatures of will which means they can choose which they are.  The only place I found in the book that could be addressing this is in the food scene when the rabbi is eating all of the non kosher foods.  Muslims also believe in saying a prayer for unclean (or possibly unclean) food.  Many Muslims (and this is beginning to emerge in scholarly research) believe that the Djinn can eat from your food if you do not say the prayer before eating.  If the Djinn eat from the food than it is unclean, no longer halal, and the person eating the food has then tainted their body.
  The figure on pg 117 looks a lot like many pictures of the Djinn.  It is very subtle but it is also very possible.  I am sure this is also in part meant for the rabbi not just as an Islam reference but again I think it is a similiarity the author means to point out.  It is one most probably wouldn't notice but it is very interesting.
  The author also has the rabbi calling the cat shaitan on pg 8 and this is very close to the Arabic word Shaytlan which means satan.  I have to admit after hearing this I though for sure the cat was going to do something bad and it kind of ruined it for me.  I was again surprised with another similarity, not only linguistically but also the point the rabbi is making at the time he calls him shaitan.  At the time the rabbi says the word he reveals to his daughter that the cat only tells lies and is using his gift for nothing but trouble.  I think this means to be a lesson that we should use our gifts for good things and those who use them for bad may suffer the lose of their gift later on.  In addition telling the truth is also a commandment.
  Lots of little things going on in The Rabbi's Cat I can't help but look for similarities everywhere in this book now.  Maybe the Djinn thought is a bit of a stretch but seeing the demon like creature next to the food is something I have seen before in Djinn research.  Overall interesting.  If anyone knows anything about this stuff I would be interested to hear your thoughts.

The Knowledge

I couldn't help but get an overall feeling that the beginning of the book was all about genesis in many ways.  The first reason I thought of this connection is the realization or discovery after the cat eats the bird.  Once the cat eats the bird he is able to speak and even reason (because of knowledge) and is given a gift which could also be a curse.  He can no longer remain in the comfort of his mistress just as Adam and Eve could no longer remain in the Garden of Eden.  Even the rabbi says once you have left the garden you cannot go back implying that the cat has left the garden/place of innocence and has been changed forever by eating the bird aka the forbidden fruit.
There was another reference to the word of God and that is towards the middle of the book when Sfar and the Rabbi meet up.  Sfar is a singer and I even think represents the not written word, possibly the oratory traditions.  The rabbi would then respresent the written word and more patricularly the Torah (of course).  When the two head up the hill on pg 84 I couldn't help but think of the way the word was revealed to both Muhammed and Moses, in the mountain side.  This is of course another symbol on commonality and common ancestry.
My favorite part of the book was the middle, when Sfar and the rabbi meet and spend an evening talking, praying, and singing.  I enjoy the way the author wove in threads from each culture even though some you would not know unless you knew a bit about Islam.  The Sufi reference on page 87 was my favorite panel simply because even when you see islamic references it is seldomly specific to the mystical side of Islam.  I enjoyed the subtle linguistic hints from the author (words that were similar in both languages) even though overall I was not a big fan of the book.  The way culture was revealed (both subtly and outwardly) was thoroughly enjoyable.

More Maus

  I decided to write about Maus again because there was so much going on in part II and because it was my favorite reading of the week.  I talked a while ago about the name issue brought forth in Krakow and I'm further intrigued with the case as it's brought forward by Spiegelman.  "They took from us our names.  And here they put me my number" (Pg 26).  This panel was not only saddening it was also a flash of lost identity.  Becoming a number and no longer being a name or even a person was a very real plight.  I can't imagine the feeling of having everything (including your name) ripped away from you.  I noticed that even though the number was mentioned and even commented on by the priest it was not pictured very often in the book (two or three times).  I felt like Spiegelman was trying to convey lost identity while at the same time giving dignity to Vladek by restoring his identity in name (in the fact that he used the number sparingly in panel drawings).  The meaning of teh numbers was very interesting too.  It had a bit of a superstition feel to it however I think that above all hope was the most crucial thing a person had to have to survive such an experience.  The priest gave the hope to Vladek but I have to say a man of God (as he would be) seemed to have such little faith.  Was he sacrificing his own hope to give to Vladek or was he just so overcome that he had long given up hope? 
  I found the racism at the end of the book to be so ironic.  Given the discrimination that he and so many other Jews faced how could he be so full of hate against another person just because of their skin color.  This perhaps was not only truly the case but I think it was also an attempt (by Spiegelman) to remind readers of the Jewishness of the Holocaust.  What we see is Vladek having an issue with race not with religion.  This outwardly reminds us that the Holocaust was a Jewish experience.  While some scholars have tried to lump in other groups killed at the time (soviets, romanians, etc...) Spiegelman is directly refutting the claims and asserting its affect on Jews.  The Holocaust was truly a Jewish experience however many others were killed and I think Spiegelman is again trying to assert Jewishness as well as identity.

Where are we?

  There was definitely a lot going on in Maus in Part II.  One of my more favorite aspects was the panel changes.  I noticed at about page 25 the direction of panels changed and I found myself wondering which way should I read.  I noticed this came about the same time that the bulk of the focus was on Auschwitz.  Since we will never truly know how this experience was for the many who parished there we can only hope to experience some disorientation and confusion when we try to understand what happened and follow the story.  I've noticed also that confusion and disorientation is a common theme in Jewish memorialization of the Holocaust and is necessary to seperate the reader or common tourist from reality in that he/she may enter a different place and time altogether.  I also noticed that the sketch style changed a bit especially with the wooded scene on Pg 83 and surrounding pages.  There seems to be an attempt to use texture with the artwork to convey a meaning.  I'm not sure exactly what the analysis here would be other than seperation from time and place and transportation (as already stated above).
  The gentlemen who takes in the stray animals intrigued me as well.  I have to say right away I thought that this is obviously because had the Jews not had people to take them in and care for them even more would have parished.  Now the man is paying forward his good fortune (of having survived) by returning the kindness to hopeless animals who are without food, water, shelter, and most importantly anyone to care for them.  This action takes me back to Schindler's List when he begins to cry and states he could've saved "one more".  Pavel obviously has the same mentality, to save just one more and so Art states that his place is overrun with dogs and cats (Page 43).  While his shrink (Pavel) says he doesn't have any guilt about surviving the camps however I think this is a lot of the reason he takes in the animals.  He cannot get back the lives of those lost but he can save the animals, this is at least in his control.
  I could go on about Maus however I won't this in and of itself is a lot to think about.  I enjoyed the second portion of the book more than the first however overall it was a great read!

No Hero

Most of what we have been talking about so far has had a commonality...there is a happy ending or in other cases a hero.  What about the absence of protagonism?  Prager explains that there is no hero in Yossel and follows with a discussion of the desire of the "being there" or at least understanding the trauma.  Most childrens literature brings forth some lesson or even an ending which leaves the reader with some satisfaction, but a reading which causes such a large amount of questioning for children/teens...is thought provoking.
I have to say childrens literature has always fascinated me and the idea of taking out the hero and giving the story a facet of realism is a welcome change.  At the same time it is a bit frightening to think of how exactly such a types of literature could impact teens and even young adults.  Are we going from teaching a lesson to giving children the tools to make their own decisions? Do children need a hero?  What are we doing by taking this away? Reality so soon!
Even upon continuing the reading and learning about distancing tragedy vs. dealing with it I just can't shake all the questions.  I haven't taken many psychology classes so I'm not sure what the true psychological answer is here but I cannot help but think there is a benefit and a cost to both dealing and distancing.  It is always the wish of a parent to want to distance their child from tragedy but the truth is you can't...no matter how hard you try.  There has to be a point when we stop talking nice about things that are not so nice and admit to ourselves and to our children the things that happen in the world.  Losing a protagonist as a teen seems like a necessary evil however what about a little earlier? If children are so desensitized then why do we feel the need to shelter, protect, and present the hero.  So, what of the hero? Who was yours and is he/she still such?  

Maus, WOW

  I was not sure at first how I would like Maus however I heard many good things so I went in with an open mind.  What I found was first wow and then more of an understanding.  Vladek feels a need (even though unsaid) to get closer to his son however his son feels the need to pull away.  I have not done any research on 2nd and 3rd generation survivors however it would be interesting to see the similarities and coorelation.  It is almost sad how his father keeps himself busy with menial things like counting nails and counting pills when his survival was so moving.  I wonder if there is some significance to the counting or if it is just to show his lack of importance or at least his perceived lack of importance.
  I found it interesting that different animals were used and at first didn't see the significance however after a little surfing I found out that the animals have a specific meaning.  The Jews are mice b'c the Nazis often referred to them as vermin and the pigs as Polish has to do with their selfishness.  I was able to find a complete listing however these are the only two I could recover information from Spiegelman himself regarding the characters.  I'll keep searchign on this b'c it feels a little like Animal Farm by George Orwell.
  I spent a lot of time wondering why Vladek married Mala if he does not love her and while I suppose it is purely out of companionship perhaps it is also because he simply cannot be alone after the experiences he endured.  I did notice that survivors tend to stick together which explains a little fo their marriage.  The relationship between Mala and Vladek is puzzling because at no point is there any sign of genuine concern or love of any kind.
  One of the things I liked most about Maus was the language.  The grammar (or lack there of) made the story seem so real and so oratory.  It gave the feeling that you are sitting on grandpa's knee hearing about his life, there was intimacy which is surprising given the distance between Vladek and his son Art.  I could almost hear the accents in his voice, it was great...really brought the story together.
  I would be interested to hear anyone's thoughts on the animalistic characterization.  Anyone have any facts on this?

The debate

While reading X-Men as J Men I found a particular sentence to be provoking.  "The continuing debate over whether the United States should promote ethnic, racial, and religious equality and diversity or whether it should become a more homogenous and less cultural society." (Pg 1).  I find it very interesting that the article is dated in 2003, so we are still asking this question? Do we really have a choice?
Consider the current debate over immigration but also consider how most of us came to be Americans...the reality is most of us would not be here were it not for immigration and Ellis Island (and even others Angel Island).  We are currently such a diverse melting pot that it seems the question is nearly irrelevant, we are past this point...aren't we?
I don't think that we could ever be homogenous and/or less cultural as a whole.  Even those of us stubborn to change and set in our ways have learned to coexist with different cultures.  I also don't think that we would be quite the same if our experiences with immigration changed.  On that note consider the equality portion of the quote.  I suppose we are more equal than we have ever been however when it comes to religion, equality and the freedom to practice we are still waging wars and finding ourselves intolerant.  We still have issues with diversity, ethnicity, and race though I would not go so far as to say that we have a true choice to be less cultural or more homogenous.
I am interested to hear what you guys think about this.  I could go on forever about this one point.  I think though there is essentially a contradiction.  In fact I believe that we are so united by our differences, that once were (i.e. if we were not immigrants from different lands we wouldn't collectively be Americans), that we couldn't be homogenous.  I know that last sentence sounds strange but think about it...we were once from many different lands to settle at one (land) and become Americans, we are all united by that factor however we are still (even generations removed) Irish, European, African, Asian, etc...  So, are we not both different and yet the same?

Spidey

While we were all talking about Spiderman the other day in class I had a thought as to a possible link between Peter Parker and old world Judaism.  If you'll recall in Krakow there was the mention that by using Queens this denoted not only Jews but also Old World ties by the names given to the characters.  This being said I wondered if this explains more than it seems to.
Not knowing much about comic books previously I mostly became familiar with Spiderman through saturday morning cartoons (since my daughter loves them).  I always noticed that Peter was always so concerned for Aunt May, even above and beyond most family members are of one another.  I always thought this was due to Uncle Ben's death however I'm thinking maybe there is another link.  What if Spiderman was some sort of protector of the Old World ways and tradition? What if perhaps he was always so concerned for Aunt May because he was concerned more for tradition?
While this idea seems to perhaps be a stretch it is not entirely impossible.  Maybe Peter just feels guilty and that is why he dotes on his aunt, maybe he worries double with his uncle gone too.  I am more inclined to think that above all Spiderman is also a symbol of preservation and tradition.  While he embodies young male Jews he also defends tradition and (on some scale) the faith.

Rosie or just the WAC?

When I read the story of Wonder Woman and when she was introduced etc... I noticed a correlation.  Diana Prince debuted the same year that the idea of women in the military really started to take shape and become a reality.  While the official start of the Womens Army Auxiliary Corps was not until 1942 the idea came in 1941 with the attack on Pearl Harbor and was set in motion by Congresswoman Rogers.  Even though women had worked as nurses previously there became a need more than ever for women to fulfill roles in the medical profession as well as other areas.  I decided to look around for pictures on the internet and even found female armorers in early 1942.
One of the sayings of the time was "Your Job: To Replace Men. Be Ready To Take Over!"  See another similarity? Diana was an Amazon and early in her career did not care too kindly for men and even saw them as the weaker gender.  This of course changed over time once she was able to work with various superhero males and see their good side but there is no doubt that Diana was the case for the WAC/WAAC!
There is no doubt that she was yet another feminine role model of the time just like Rosie the Riveter but what is more important regarding Wonder Woman is that she continues to change even today.  I recently found an article by the Washington Post which included some excellent pictures (I will post this too) of Wonder Woman throughout the years.  She was not just a hero then, she is still a hero now!  While few know of her as none other than the tall Amazonian princess in the bodysuit and skirt she now sports pants and even a motorcycle jacket!
Diana is now officially breaking away from the typical and breaking new ground in regards to her respect and power.  She has left behind the skirt and transformed into the ultimate picture of authority with s new sleek style which gets rid of the girlish patriotic flair.  She still stands for truth and justice but does so with more strength than ever.  I have to say I not only like the new look because it is a bit more of the time but it is also a bit more appropriate for young girls who find themselves everyday trying to measure up to certain feminine standards.  What this says is that you can be beautiful and even powerful without being perfect in every way.  Womnder Woman is in this way helping girls to be comfortable with themselves and confident in who they are and this is bigger than many battles she has fought before.
Here is the link for the story and artwork, you can even vote on the new look.  I think this is a very exciting development in Wonder Woman!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2010/06/30/ST2010063005728.html?sid=ST2010063005728

Forsaking the name

When I thought about the many instances in which various early Jewish comic book authors had changed their names I wondered what this must have been like to give up ones identity.  Most people often think that a name is just a name and the person who bears it is no more or less without it but I can say I would not agree.
While I can understand the reasons many jewish comic book authors and artists changed their name I am compelled to respect even more those who did not.  In this case it is not just a removal of a name or switching a few letters, it is leaving behind Judaism (in some light) for safety and even profit.  At the end of the day providing for family overcomes any sense of pride but, what did they lose when doing so? Or did they? Did they in some way feel guilty? I know I would.
I have known people from different ethnicities who have changed their name because in some way they thought it may make life easier though the affect is not often what they hoped for.  Once the name is left behind and in some ways they feel lighter (persons I've known) feel guilty and even sorry for leaving behind a part of their life and identity.  Consider the issue that the given name is a cherished family relation or even an attempt at continuing the family name!
I feel like I am over thinking this (and maybe I am) but much of what we are is because of where we have been and the names we are given not only mark us for the convenience of others they name us in identity and in our families...in our past and in our futures.  I am interested to hear what anyone and everyone thinks about this, do you agree with just changing the name to obtain job security and even personal safety or is there something to be said for maintaining a name?