“Reason is the natural order of truth; but imagination is the organ of meaning."--C.S. Lewis

Since we started reading graphic novels, it seems there has always been a reason as to why a story was written. At least to me as a History major, I feel there has to be questioning on the importance of a source so I always ask, 'Why are we reading this book?" or "What are we supposed to get out of this?" Take the Rabbi's Cat for example. I personally did not like the book because I could not make out what the author's reasoning behind the book was. Then when it was explained in class, it opened my eyes to new thoughts. Now I want to relate this to Esther...

I think the author did not have in mind to have this underlying message in the graphic novel. Instead, I think he was just retelling the story of Esther in graphic novel form. *Yes, you can call me captain obvious* After I finished Esther, my first reaction was, "I wonder what the author's reasoning was behind this book." So I came to the conclusion that there was not one other than the fact that it was done for entertainment. Then I read in, "The Jewish Graphic Novel," that Waldman actually did have a deeper connection to the graphic novel he created. It has to do with the set-up of the story in graphic novel form though as opposed to the actual story of Esther.
Waldman thinks that the combination of text with pictures strengthens brain power, (BOS, pg. xi). I think that was Waldman's intention was to write a graphic novel that would help readers remember the story. It makes sense and also it gives Waldman an excuse to show off his art skills, which are amazing. It is actual art where you have to interpret what is happening as opposed to showing the obvious.

Bible History

The second half of Megillat Esther was a difficult task for me. Primarily because it took me about 20 minutes just to figure out the new 'flipped' order of the book. When I proved to be smarter than the book it took me another 40 minutes just to figure out everything that was going on. One would think that after this unfortante event that I would hate the book. Oh don't be so sure my friends. I actually very much loved the rest of Megillat Esther. It was like revisiting my past. I'll explain.

What struck me first was pages 102 and 103. The only thing familiar to me was the story of Joseph and his brother Judah. Waldman set-up the story kind of comicly in my opinion. I thought it was great to put Joseph and Judah in front of a courtroom.

The comic page was entitled, "Tales of Justice." Judah is called before the court for 2 things : 1. "Damage of Property" and 2. "Defamation of Character and Slander."
The first, according to the comic, is Judah being accused of destroying Joseph's coat of many colors that was given to him by their father, Jacob. It was said in the Old Testament that Joseph was Jacob's favorite. The second relates to Judah lying to Jacob that Joseph was killed by an animal. Really what had happened was Judah and his brothers sold Joseph into slavery.
I think this story was put into Esther because it was meant to prove a point which was that justice would be done to those who did wicked things. My interpretation is that because of Judah's wicked actions his decendents, the Judeans, who were Esther and Mordecai's people.

*I hope the connection came out clearly. I had to do a lot of private grade school research*

God Hiding

At the end of the first part there is a picture of God hiding his face. Around the picture are the words, "I will surely hide my face on that day because of the evil people have done."

I thought this meant that God was hiding his face from Haman and the other Jew haters because He was upset that they were going to harm His choosen people.

The next topic to consider is the concept of a chosen people and why I stated that the Jews are God's chosen people. God promised Abraham that the savior would come from his family and Abraham was the father of the Jewish people, or so that is what is beleived...correct me if I am wrong. So I think God is sad, therefore hiding His face, from the evil that may become of the Jews during this time under King Xerxes.

Girl Power!!!

Before reading Magillat Esther, I knew the story pretty well. I'm a private school child. I was actually excited to read the story becuase I knew it was something I would be able to comprehend. I thought I would be able to read quickly through it, which I was able to. One of the things that I found interesting was Waldman's personality portrayal of Esther.

In school when I first learned about Eshter, she was taught as a quiet, modest woman yet strong in her faith. Waldman actually seems to contridict this idea which made me a little uneasy. There was one part in the story where Malachi and Esther are exchanging messages back and forth. Esther seems a little sassy with one message which I was shocked to see! This sweet woman who did everything she was told does have a temper!

Esther's overall physical apperence in the novel does not fit the tiny, timid girl I pictured either. She is a curvaceous, taller woman. Which nothing is wrong with it just contridicts the traditional, in my mind traditional, image of Esther. I actually prefer to imagine Esther the way she was portrayed in the novel because it makes more sense. She had to be strong, look at the things she had to do!
1. Keep her identity a secret
2. Being kidnapped to the palace and then being there by herself only to be a kind of an object for the king's pleasure
3. She had to go to the king, without permission, which was punishable by death!

Waldman's Esther is my new role model.

Waltz with Bashir II

There is another image in the movie where the main charater keeps dreaming that he is in a sea, naked, and he rises out of the sea with some other soldiers.

At the end of the movie it is said that the sea is his fear. So he is consumed in fear. Then he rises out of his fear to face battle. In his dream, when he rises out of the sea to meet the city before him and there are flares that are falling from the sky.

I tried to think about what this meant during the movie. Then at the end his friend tells him, (as mentioned before), that the sea represents his fear. I think, based off of that, that he had fear but he was forced to rise out of that fear in order to fight for the country. I get this idea not just from his actions but also from other characters actions.

There was one scene where 2 soldiers are in a tank and they are not sure what they are shooting at. One asks what are we shooting at and the other responds with no idea just shoot. In my mind this shows fear.

There is another example where one tank is blown up and all the men flee. My first reaction was, 'why didnt they defend themselves?' They all ran away actually most got killed except one who managed to escape. I was suprised to see that it seems that these men weren't trained to deal with the possibility of being killed. Actually, it comes up that during training or before battle soldiers were told they were going to die. This doesnt prove that they were scared, but it makes them afraid, it instead makes me think that these men were not united. This can cause lots of problems. I just think about some of the WW2 movies or American combat movies where these men are relient on each other and they know that. They are realy taught to care for each other and look out for each other. I did not get that vibe from Waltz with Bashir.

Waltz with Bashir

Waltz with Bashir is a movie based off of the massacre of the Sabra-Shatila refugee camps. The main character in the movie is having difficulties remembering the massacre as in he has images of the situation but he cannot remember the details. This makes him question if he was really a part of the massacre or was it something that he 'dreamt.' Throughout the movie he is on a mission to solve this mystery.

One of the most burning images is in the beginning when there is a pack of dogs with yellow eyes that are running seeming like they are chasing something. They start to pass people and they stop at a house where the main character pokes his head out of the window and he looks fearful. This image is so strange because it is kind of difficult to interpret.

I think that the dogs are kind of a reincarnate of the people that were killed in the massacre. They are looking for revenge or they are haunting the main character in his mind. He can't shake the event from his memory and they lead him to want to figure out what exactly happened.

Abraham

So, there is this picture in Jobnik where Miriam is looking up at the stars and she sees a mix of stars and plans. I immediatly invisioned Abraham looking up at the stars when God promised him his decendents would be as numerous as the stars. The 2 pictures look a like.

I couldn't find any relation to the two stories they seem so oppposite. Miriam is a women soldier and Abraham was a father of religious people. The more I thought about it I think there could still be some similarities. Abraham looked to the stars where God promised him as many decendents as the stars where maybe Miriam was fighting for a land that could be the home to millions of people and their decendents. Maybe this does not make a lot of sense or it's just a dumb thought but I want to believe there is a reason that this picture of Miriam looking up at the stars is so memorable.

Jobnik!

When I got done reading Jobnik! I felt there was no reason to the story but the more I thought about it, (or I should say the less I thought about it), I knew I was missing something. It doesn't make sense that we would be required to read a book that has 'no meaning' behind it plus every book has a reason to be written.

My initial reaction was I felt bad for Miriam. I wanted to reach out to her. I hated the way she was giving herself away sexually to men that didn't care for her. It's not that she didn't know that but in some cases it seems she was genuinely interested in them. I think she was having an identity crisis. She said she was an American Jew who moved to Israel to fight in the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

She didn't seem to be to publicly outspoken for one side or the other and the news stories ,whether they were from the T.V. or newspapers, seemed unbiased as well. Some talked about the attacks on the Israeli's then some seemed sympathetic to the Palestinian side. One example that I can think of is the News story where there was an attack on Palestinian civilians and they mentioned that a young child was killed as well as his father. I took this as she feels somewhat sympathetic because this story is mentioned therefore she feels somewhat confused.

Miriam also talks about how she never really belonged to any group of people. She is kind of a 'loner.' One example is from her home life. Her parents raised her in a conservative, strict, Jewish religion but her family was somewhat lax. Her way of dress was not completely 'modest' according to Jewish rules.

There is one scene in the book where Miriam is talking with a therapist and he diagnoses her with all these different mental illnesses. She does not seem to have a reaction it's like she just accepts them.

I think all of these points taken from the story do show a sense of confusion as to who she is. I think she takes it out in her relations with men as well. I think she is trying to cling to someone rather than something in order to 'define' herself.

I would really like to hear other ideas and opinions on the matter EVEN IF IT IS AN OPPOSING VIEW I LOVE DEBATE! Let me know y'all!

Jewish Identity

Sfar speaks about Jewish Identity, specifically, he is trying to say that Jews do not have a distinct look. The stereotypical 'Jewish' look does not exist in Sfar's book, he talks about Jews from France and North Africa which clearly don't have the same physical appearance. However, it may also mean they don't have the same religious practice, and in the book, it shows that they do not practice Judaism the same way. Nonetheless, Sfar believes everyone should be accepted no matter how they practice.

It's also an important lesson that can be learned in any sect of life. However, I can see it especially identifying with religion. I know some older generations are so quick to judge people if they practice a different religion or they practice the same religion but with a 'twist.' This is obviously unfair but people shouldn't worry too much. I just think it is interesting to see how we have evolved socially.

The Rabbi's Cat

When I first read the Rabbi's Cat I did not get it. In class I shared the same frustration with other students who were confused at the drawing style or the plot. There were so many sub plots that I didn't know what ones were important nor did I understand how they were connected. I also couldn't figure out how they related to Judaism.
It was explained in class that the significance of the story is actually on the last page where the Rabbi states there is no 'right or wrong' way to Judaism. The Rabbi reaches this conclusion through the book when he meets a variety of characters that are Jewish or not Jewish.
One example is when he meets his daughters future husband and realizes that although he is a Jewish Rabbi himself, he is not a stanch, traditionalist Jew. At first this bothers the Rabbi but over time he realizes he can't do anything about the situation and learns to accept it.
Another example is when he meets his nephew who is a street actor. His nephew is also in a relationship with a catholic singer. The Rabbi does not see this as proper but again, he learns to accept it.
As I stated before, the Rabbi seems to say at the end of the story that is does not matter how you live but everyone within the Jewish religion should be accepted. I think that is a lesson that everyone could learn.

Oh that Vladek Spiegelman

I think Art needs to lay off of his father. He is so mean to his father! I understand where he sees his dad as annoying and clingy but after reading other people's bloggs I understand more why Vladek is the way he is. His life through the Holocaust made him appreciate and find worth in everything to the point where he saved junk. During the Holocaust he had to save and ration everything in order to survive. He wants a close relationship with his son because he needed people connection through the Holocaust for comfort.

All the things he learned to value became a part of his life, literally transforming his person, to the man we see a little of in Maus 1 but mostly in Maus 2.

Come on, Vladek is a funny guy too! Can't Art learn to laugh at his dad and some of the crazy things he does?! I laughed so hard when Art was trying to explain, 'hey dad, we don't want any food!' But Vladek insisted they take it anyway. I think that is so funny because I'm not sure if Vladek really gets the point or if he chooses to ignore what his son says. I like to think Vladek doesn't give a crap about what his son says. *Love this guy....*

Maus II

I just got done finishing Maus II. I liked the first one better, NOT THE POINT. I want to discuss in this blogg the other groups who were persecuted besides the Jews in the concentration camps.
I have a fascination with the persecution of the Polish people because it seems such a mystery as to why they were placed in these camps. The Jews we know were treated this way because they were 'ethnic minorities' but even this circulates debate among historians. Once again...NOT THE POINT.

I wanted to talk about the Polish people because they were not really ethnically different, both are considered middle European nations. Looking back on Polish-German History, the 2 countries have been fighting with each other since their origins in the 900s. I have always believed that from this ancient problem between the 2 countries came the situation from WW2, that being the Polish peoples persecution under the Nazis.

As I read Maus 2, I started to question my assumption so I consulted a reliable source, an old college professor who specialized in Eastern European relations. The man is a genius. I want to be him some day. He said that although the 2 countries were pretty much fighting throughout History the primary time is was especially bad, (which consequently caused Polish persecution), was what happened after WW1.

I knew EXACTLY what he was talking about now! After WW1, the Treaty of Versailles decided that Germany would be punished immensely for the war. They had to pay money, their army was cut to barley enough people, and they also had to give up important land, like Danzig which was an important port city. The Germans gave up most of this land to...YOU GUESSED IT, TO THE POLES! Danzig was actually considered a free city/country where Germans and Poles shared the wealth but that didn't last long because Hitler attacked Danzig therefore stretched to other Polish occupied lands. Hitler brutally attacked Poland out of jealousy. Now I just realized that this does not answer the question that I was trying to ask before and that was, WHY were the poles persecuted.

I already established some anger issues coming from Germany on the Poles but also there are other reasons such as differences in culture and especially religion considering Poland is very Catholic and Germany, under Hitler, was not any type of religion. Not to mention, Poland had the leading numbers in Jewish population which caused even more hatred from Hitler. So the poles were indeed considered ethnic minorities.

Any questions?! Have I mentioned how much I LOVE history!!

Call me crazy bananas...

In class we were discussing Maus and on one of the pages, Vladek Spiegelman has a dream while he is sleeping at a labor camp where his grandfather came to him and said, "Don't worry, you will be free on the day of Parshas Truma." Professor Levine said this was when a chapter was read, usually from Exodus, once a week for a year. My immediate reaction was, "Huh, that's interesting because Moses' story with the Israelites is featured in Exodus." Then I started thinking...

That's an interesting comparison. Vladek Spiegelman is supposed to be freed on Parshas Truma which is when the Israeli people were also freed by Moses. Maybe it doesn't make sense. I asked a friend in the class and he failed to miss the connection....at least he wasn't as excited about it as I was...

As always, let me know!!

Maus 1

So this week we were assigned to read the first Maus comic book by Spiegelman. Pretty exciting stuff. I own both of them, therefore have read them. When I first heard of Maus I was learning about Polish History. My professor for the class recommended these books to me and I went out to buy them right away, can I just say that I bought them at a Harry Schwartz bookstore second hand for about 10 bucks for both! I was excited. NOT THE POINT! The point is when I first read them I was intersted in them for Vladek Spiegelman's historical input. I didn't realize there was an 'art' form in 'em. Well, I realized why the Nazis are portrayed as cats and the Jews are portrayed as mice, that was pretty cool to see. Outside of that however, I had no idea there was more of an art form other than just the historical meaning.

One of the things I found interesting is that the Polish people are depicted as pigs....and I wonder why. I could be incorrect, because my polish history class was 4 years ago now, but Poland had a large population of Jewish people but they were for the most part left alone until the Nazis came in of course. I guess I still don't understand why the Poles are shown this way. If anyone has any idea, let me know!

Silver Age

In class we discussed some things that makes the silver age, the silver age. For example, since there was a censorship put on comics a lot of writers moved towards 'family' ideas and more family centered values. Some comic charaters were more in touch with their feelings. Especially in Spiderman readers witness a hero that they can actually relate to like Peter Parker and his life problems. Superheros start to have troubles with relationships and financials which make them more realistic. Before, comics in the Golden Age where classic comic heros were treated as escape situations for the artist therefore they are portrayed as being super or un-human. We don't see Superman talking about his financial troubles or whatever.
This matters to prove my opinion that Silver Age comics are better than the golden age. I think Golden Age comics have to be respected since they are considered classics yet comics have evolved over time and the silver age is when we see the next big transition made by writers and artists.

Magneto

I just got done reading the article titled, "X-Men as J Men." It discusses all of the undercover ideas that the writers were trying to get out that most people did not know about. For example, the meaning behind Magneto. As I was reading it, it seemed strange that a Holocaust survivor is a villain. Most stories depict a Holocaust survivor as the victim or a hero. Magneto is clearly different and that is because of his motives. Magneto is seen as a villain because he wants the mutants to rise up against society so there will not be another 'holocaust' against the mutants. He is fearful of another genocide against his people. When I realized this, it makes sense and it makes you feel bad for him. So he's like a good villain. Maybe some people disagree still...

Poor Magneto....

It's interesting to make parallels from History to today. Since I am a history major I constantly do this through my classes. On a side note, it is kind of comical to see how I have progressed over the years trhough my major. I mean, when I started college I constantly thought of examples from today that I could relate what I was learning to. Then come senior year and I all the sudden find myself finding examples from History where I can explane today or 'predicte' current events.

Anyway, this is relevant and it relates to censorship of comic books and graphic novels. It was crazy to learn about the censorship and how people actually thought that graphic novels influenced children into becoming criminals. I understand but I just started thinking about the prohibition era and how well that worked out, (said with sarcasm if you can't detect it). Also, I wonder if those regulations are still used today? Are comic books still censored that hard core? If anyone knows they should get back to me. I don't get it I mean it's like blaming a gun if someone gets shot.

Interesting....

I'm going to go off on a rant about everything I learned. Please don't laugh because I am a person that knows literally nothing behind comic books and their writers.

ANYWAY! I did not know that everyone who made up these super heroes were Jewish.

I also did not know that the comic book industry had a bad reputation. I guess I shouldn't say 'bad reputation', but people didn't appreciate comic books the way we do now. I thought that people were really into the stories and they became a popular item of society. I know in some instances people read them, like young boys, but compared to today comic books are read and appreciated by all ages it seems.

I also did not know that some of the comic book stories were so active in social matters like WW2 for example.

One of the things that really caught my interest was the discrimination going on in America against the Jews. All's I can say is go figure. I really had no idea. I understand where America is considered primarily 'Christian' but I kind of thought that Americans were used to religious differences considering Jews have been around for awhile in America. But besides religious differences, I wonder if there was anything else that made people act the way they did towards the Jews. I mean, why would Americans find the need to discriminate against Jewish people besides religion? Unless religion is the only answer.

Horatio Alger

In class the other night we talked a little about Eisner's influnece by Horatio Alger. I have never heard of Alger until my Progressive Age/ GIlded Age History class. Alger was an influentual writter who told stories which had typical 'rags to riches' plots. At least that is the impression that I had received by his book, Ragged Dick or Street Life in New York with the Boot-Blacks.

When the book was written it was a common thing for young boys to be living on the street where they had to find some sort of an occupation, such as black-booting, in order to make a living for themselves or their families. It is here that we find the 'hero' of the novel, Ragged Dick, who had lost his family and is trying to make a living for himself. Ragged Dick is different than the other boys though. He is an honest human and very ambitious. He is also very caring of other people even if they have wronged him in some way. There is one boy in the book who ends up losing his father who was his dependence to survive. Come to find out the boy's father was cheated by a family friend out of all his money therefore causing this boy to become poor. So the boy had to live on the street and start Boot- blacking as well. Ragged Dick invited the boy to room with him in his new home which is a very nobel thing. Eventually Ragged Dick decided to get schooling in order to get a better job which eventually works out. These are just a few examples of how this story goes.

I can see the relation between Eisner's book and Alger's book. To a certain extent Eisner's book does tell a fairy tail where the underdog rises to the top. In Cookalein, the 2 younger persons who lie about their financials do this in order to attracked a rich mate. Then as we see it ends terrible as the man rapes the women. Yet it turns out they both 'benefit' in the end where he finds another woman she decided to marry the man that really loves her. It's a small example compared to Ragged Dick yet the similar set-up is still there.

The young boy who finds the contract with God after Hersh feels that it is something worth valuing. Before he was a good boy but then he was almost beat by some younger boys yet he ends up with a victory over the 3 bullying boys. Then he finds this contract which he feels will also make his life better. Again, a small example to compare to Alger's story yet there is a similar general plot.

Hmmm....

I feel the need to express some ideas that are on my mind. These ideas came up as I read A Contract with God because I feel so much for Frimme Hersh, the main charactor in the first story. Before I go on,  I want you all to know this post is a personal account about my beleifs and reflections. I am merley expressing my thoughts and feelings and do not intend on offending anyone who disagrees or has a different view point. If you do indeed have a different opinion or want to add something by all means, I would love to hear it.

Anyway, here I go....

First off. I am a little perplexed about Eisner's reasoning behind this book. I read in the course text book that A Contract with God is based on some of Eisner's personal experiences as well as other people's experience nonethelss it is difficult to tell what the purpose behind the book is. I have some hypothesis that could be justified but I suppoese there isn't just one answer to the question. Anyway it is kind of fun to think about. That is if there is a point to the book.

Next, I want to focus on Hersh's story because I really felt emotionally attached to that story. The guy makes a contract with God when he's a boy. He dedicated his life to doing good works and did them until his daughter died. Then he became angry with God for taking his daughter away and turned away from his faith, as shown by him spitting on the contract and then throwing out the window. Later he felt a need to fill a void in his life, (becuae he missed God?), where he then went back to the synagauge and asked the Jewish teachers to make another contract with God for him. When he had received the completed copy he became so happy and felt whole again only to have a heart attack and then....die shortly after.

I believe in God but I never thought of making a contract with God because I couldn't keep it. This story gives the impression, based off of Hersh's opinion, that God failed at keeping his end of the contract hence why Hersh is angry with God. I understand Hersh's frusteration. His heart was broken when his daughter died and according to a religious person God is the only one to create and end life so it makes sense that Hersh was angry with God but life is not perfect even for a religious person. This story especially I am having a hard time understanding what Eisner's point is. I think it is if a person is going to commite their life to a religion they should really commite themselves to the teachings. For example, in class we discussed how some of the Jewish men were having affairs with Christian women. Some people in class seemed to take this as a knock against Christians. I don't think eisner had any hate but I think he did have a little problem with religion over all, specifically with people who idetified themselves as 'religious.'

For example, Hersh was angry with God because his life was not going well. To a 'normal' person it is understood that life is imperfect but for some reason Hersh thought making this contract with God would make his life happy. I think Eisner is making fun of that idea because a lot of people question why a 'good' God would allow bad things to happen therefore the religious people become fakes. Also the people in the novel that claim they are christian, their morals seem to be a little messy. It makes me think Eisner is making fun of them too because although a christian realizes the imperfect life, they seem to take advantage of God and his rules as in they seem to follow what they want as opposed to what God wants and says. This is pointed out as wrong.

So a person who identifies themselves as 'religious' need to find that medium where they realize life it life, as in it is imperfect but they also need to try to live a life according to God's expectations.

Whoo-Whoo!

Hey all, this is my first blog ever!!

I'm supposed to blog for a class called, Judaism and Comic Books. I'm not really sure what we have to bog about to be honest I know that it has to do with the readings we have in class....and that's about it. I'm sure things will be clearer once the class really gets going. In the mean time I am pretty excited to start reading these books!!