Absurdity from contrast

Maus, by Art Spiegelman,is a retell of the holocaust with an endearing twist of crudeness. It may not be the most accurate documentation of what happened to the Jewish people during Hitler’s reign, but it isa blunt and personal depiction of humans-an animalistic one. 

In the graphic novel, Spiegelman depicts the Jews as rats, perhaps a visual wordplay of “the Jewish rat”. But more importantly the characteristics of a rat summarizes the experiences of Jews during the holocaust. They had to hide in small holes in the house, they had to hoard, were not wanted in their own homes, and were chased out and hunted by Cat nazis. They were basically treated as rats. It is quite ironic how the word that was meant to insult Jews became the word that describes how they were mistreated. The qualities of resourcefulness and wittiness of a rat fits Vladek’s personality, but the unbearableness and annoyance of having a rat in the house also illustrates Vladek in his later years.

 Spiegelman’s use of animals is so specific to the context of World War Two that audience feels a visceral discomfort from their horror stories than humanly depicted ones. To an extent, the audience does not even notice the absurdity of anthropomorphic characters but rather they focused on  absurdity of the situation. It also proves that the experience that then Jewish people went through in WW2 is universally horrid. 

Additionally, the reason why readers accept this unique depiction is also due to its ability to create a zeitgeist. Like “Animal farm” by George Orwell, the story of mistreatment and political revolution is told through the allegory of animals, to show how the mistreated is no different from the status of a barn animal.  The concept of having humans treating each other like animals is a common theme in society-based stories. However, what Spiegelman is doing in Maus serves a question to this theme rather than stating it. Why is it that we see the more human qualities in the animals of Maus than in humans? 

What makes Spiegelman’s graphic novel so captivating is that he explores the behavior of a human rather than the ideals of one. In Maus, the protagonist, Vladek was shown through two lens, the personal one and the private one. In the personal story, readers get to experience the struggles and horrors that Vladek went through. The story of young Vladek is always at high stakes and extremely engaging, which made his resourcefulness awarding to watch. In other words, this is a hero’s story that the audience is rooting for. Yet at the same time, Vladek is shown as a hysterical old man in the eyes of his own son. He is shown as stereotypically stingy and racist, and is not afraid to go out for what he wants despite it going against social norms. Having seen two completely different sides of Vladek makes him more human. He is not all hero because he is a bitter old man, but he is also not entirely a bitter old man because of his past. Vladek is simply a person who used his skills to survive the holocaust and is too physiologically trapped to drop his survival practices. 

Even the author is not entirely likable despite being a narrator. His interaction with his father and girlfriend is biased, but his view of Vladek in his later years did not influence the way we see him in his younger years. Although one could argue that it is because Spiegelman sees his father as two different characters, that is why we see it, the main point is the nature of conversation with his father. Spiegelman used a tape recorder to keep his father’s stories. By revealing how it was told rather than just retelling his father’s story, he reveals the bittersweet relationship he had with his father. Perhaps he decided to depict this to show he only listened to what he want to hear from his father, and not what else his father has to say. He never directly acknowledged his lack of patience and understanding of his father to Vladek, but perhaps this is his way of admitting it. After all, he is a comic artist that is known for not holding back on honesty. His reference to the comic as response to his mother’s death was very confessional. He felt trapped in guilt and blamed it on his mother. Here is the same although not direct, but there is a tiny of guilt and endearment towards his father’s antics-we do not clearly know, perhaps part of him missed it. It is quite ironic that he wanted to stay away from his father as far as possible while illustrating all the little details of his father. 

Perhaps the essence of being human is not to be empathetic, but embracing our contrast. The idea that one could be more than one might be complicated to comprehend, hence we have to accept that anything outside our understanding can happen. Thus, we live to create and survive our self-made absurdity. Because what happened in the book that horrified the readers was not because of the animals, but what they do to each other.