Sexual acts to please the king?

Was it just me, or was there a lot of implied sex in Megillat Esther? Even in the Biblical text, the king asks only for beautiful young virgins to be brought before him so that he may chose a queen, only if she pleased him. The same exact thing happens in Megillat Esther, only that the Graphic novel shows a lot of implied sex. An example being on page 48 of the graphic novel that depicts four different women who were chosen to be sent to the king to see is she “pleased” the king. These women are depicted as beautiful and, as the text says, virgins. The first three women on the page seem to be dressed in lingerie type clothing, implying that these women are trying to please the king through sexual acts. However, it’s funny that the last woman on the first frame seems to not be wanting to please the king through sex, but rather food. The page then goes on in the next three frames all showing the king laying down (belly and all) with a different woman coming up to him in the three different frames. These women appear to be pleasuring the king through sexual intercourse or sexual acts (the first frame shows a woman with a feather that implies some type of Kinky sex? (pardon my explicitness) the second frame shows a woman putting oil on her hands implying you know what, and the third frame shows a woman who is doing who knows what to the king). The implied sex in the text isn’t graphic, but rather (as previously stated) implied. It’s just interesting that Jt Waldman shows this in his graphic novel because when I personally read the Biblical book of Esther, I assumed when it said “pleased the king” meant that the woman was beautiful and pleasing to look at, not a woman who fulfills the sexual desires of the king. Maybe the Biblical text was implying sex and I misunderstood, or JT Waldman just interpreted the text in this way in his Graphic novel.

Jesus in Esther?!?

After reading the Biblical book of Esther, I went back through my study Bible and read the introduction of the book. It mentions simple things, such as: possible author, date of writing, purpose of writing, etc. I then found a note in the introduction that compared Queen Esther to Jesus. After thinking about it, I also see that connection. When Esther was crowned as Queen she had a lot of power that was given to her by the king. When she learned that Haman was going to start a war to wipe out all of the Jews, this frightened her, after all she was Jewish. Right then and there, she had a choice; she could either try to save her people, or keep quiet and live with the fact that her people were destroyed. As the book of Esther mentions, she went to the king without acquiring permission before hand to enter his presence, which was punishable by death, to ask him to have a feast with her and Haman. It was at this feast where she would explain to the king that she, herself, was Jewish, and that Haman was going to destroy her people for selfish reasons. Luckily for her, the king loved her more than Haman and he ordered the destruction to stop and to have Haman and his sons killed. Jews and Christians would argue that God watched over Esther, and it was he, through Esther, that saved the Jews. With this being said, Esther is like Jesus because she, like Jesus, had to make a sacrifice to save her people. Esther chose to put her life on the line by telling the king she was Jewish at the feast. It would have been nothing for the king to kill her for the fact she was Jewish and that the kingdom (and surrounding kingdoms) were going to wipe out the Jews. Esther also put her life on the line by entering the kings presence without permission, she could have easily been killed for disobeying the law. Thus, Esther was like Jesus because she made sacrifices and was willing to lay her life on the line for the Jews; Jesus, in the same sort of way according to the Bible, sacrificed himself for the salvation of both the Jews and Gentiles. For these reasons, Esther models Jesus.

God is always in control

There are many themes in the book of Esther and in Megillat Esther, by JT Waldman. On theme is that there is no mention of God in the book of Esther. To my knowledge, there is also no specific mention of God in Waldman’s graphic novel. It’s interesting that Waldman kept his graphic novel very close to the book of Esther. Why is there no mention of God in Waldman’s graphic novel and in the Biblical book of Esther? My thought is that even though God is not mentioned in either book, the plot of the story shows that God is always in control and that he cares and loves his chosen people (the Jews). This love and control God uses is shown in Esther because she tells the king that Haman is going to kill her people (which could have been problematic if the king rejected Esther because she is Jewish, she put her life and queen ship on the line for her people). Lucky for Esther, the king takes Esther’s side and Kills not only Haman, but also all of his sons (probably so they don’t start a rebellion when they grow up). The story of Esther also show’s God is in control by not only using Esther to ask the King to rid the Jews of Haman, but also allowing the Jews to be accepted in the kingdom. The Jews were able to fight their enemies and win because of the kings help and Edict on behalf of the Jews. So, just because God is not mentioned in the book of Esther, does not mean that he isn’t in control, as shown by the plot of Esther.

Megillat Esther, good, but a little long.

After I read both the Biblical book of Esther and Megillat Esther, by JT Waldman, I discovered there were many differences, even though Megillat Esther is based on the book of Esther from the Bible. One difference, that is obvious, is that Megillat Esther is quite a bit longer than the Biblical Esther. This is because two or so pages takes up two or so verses from the Biblical Esther. There are also Interludes in the graphic novel that are obviously not in the Biblical book. I also felt that the Biblical Esther was straight and to the point, after all it is a short book of the Bible and only takes up ten chapters; while the graphic novel seemed to draw the story out (which is understandable for making ten chapters into a graphic novel, but I thought it was too long, especially with the interludes). I did enjoy the graphic novel, however I personally thought it was too long and it was sometimes hard for me to follow. There were many instances where the illustrations were just mixed around on the page and I was confused on which frame to read first (for example, Prologue ii, v. pages 91-93). I also was not a big fan of having to flip the book over to read halfway through the book. I did, however, enjoy that the book was written in both Hebrew and English. So, overall, I think that the graphic novel was sometimes harder to follow than say reading the Biblical book of Esther. I wonder why JT Waldman decided to make the graphic novel so long? I think the author’s intensions were to show and explain every verse to a T. With that being said, I understand why the graphic novel was so long, but I think it would have been better if JT Waldman would have shortened it up, maybe by getting rid of the unnecessary Interludes?

a bad name

After viewing the film Waltz with Bashir, I have many reasons for why I liked and why I didn’t like the movie. However, the film was overall great, and the content was a real eye opener to the viewer. People always hear about war, and people understand that everyday there are soldiers overseas risking their life for their country. The same is true for the 1980’s war in Lebanon, people knew it was going on but the majority of us live in a safe society far away from the fighting that it seems so surreal until one actually sees the fighting (I’m using this off topic example to compare this to- I’m from the gulf coast of Florida and I visit my mother every year. Everyone knew and heard about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico but it was so surreal to me until I actually went to the beach and saw the oil wash up on shore. It doesn’t seem real until you actually see it with your own eyes). War and death are both very real and I think people get caught up in their own life without seeing the big and sometimes horrible picture that is going on around them.
I would also like to comment on the Christian Phalangists who started what I would like to call genocide on the Palestinian people of west Beirut. It is pure stupidity for this military group to blame innocent Palestinian people for the death of their leader. The countless number of women and children killed during this genocide is disturbing and embarrassing. Being a strong Christian myself, I have to say that this group of so call “Christian” Phalangists aren’t really Christian (or at least are missing the fundamental beliefs of the Christian faith). Last time I checked my Bible, Christians are told to love one another and to do on to others as you would have them do on to you. Jesus NEVER discriminated, but he did love and treat everyone equally, as he calls Christians to do. I hate to say it but it’s groups like this one that give Christians a bad name.

Hard questions to answer...

It’s a taboo and a horrific sin in almost every Western religion. It’s been debated and interpreted throughout the years on whether or not it is a sin, and there have been rallies for equal rights for these people. Yes, this is nothing else than homosexuality. It’s been a problem since people can remember, it’s even mentioned in the Hebrew Bible as a sin; a sin deserving death. It’s interesting to see that the times have and still are changing for the homosexual communities in the world, and more specifically in Israel. Alon Raab, in his article, Ben Gurion’s Golem and Jewish Lesbians, discusses that “the Israel of the 1960s and 1970s, years when gays and lesbians were still treated as Pariahs (someone who is despised or avoided).” He then goes on to say that “[a] major section is given to the period 1990 to the present, years of great legal strides for lesbians and gays, with growing acceptance in many spheres of life.” He later goes on to discuss the gay rights rallies and parades that happened in Tel Aviv and the support that people of Israel give to homosexuals in Tel Aviv. This is very interesting, considering that historically Jews (along with Christians and Muslims) frowned on homosexuality. But with more secularization that is taking place in Israel, it seems that more people are open to the idea. I guess this raises the questions of: Is homosexuality a sin? If so why? If not why? Is it a choice, psychological, or genetic? And, why are so many Jews become secularized and open to homosexuality when in the 60s and 70s they were against it? I think these questions are very open ended and they are up to the ideas of individuals. Homosexuality can be a very touchy subject and I, the author, will not share my ideas or state if I’m for or against homosexuality. However, I will say that there are no clear answers to these questions, but I find it interesting that many people and communities be it in America, Israel, or anywhere, are more open to the idea of homosexuality.

Libicki's drawings

Big eyed, short, chubby bodies were the normal illustrations in Miriam Libicki's Jobnik!. Every page is filled with a very cartoony art style that makes the graphic novel Jobnik! so provocative. It is said that Miriam Libicki was inspired by Menga which is the reason for the big eyes. However, she chose a drawing style and kept it consistent throughout the graphic novel. The only time she changes her illustration is when she is discussing external conflicts to the story. For example, on pages 36 and 37 Libicki shows an uprising of the Palestinians that took place in the early 2000’s. These illustrations are very different than how Libicki draws herself and other characters around her. The faces are very realistic, and the bodies look like they were drawn directly from a snapshot (especially the man on page 36 in frame 3 who is older wearing sunglasses and a suit). Why did Libicki choose to draw this event like this? There are a number of possible reasons. Maybe the most reasonable reason was to show that this event was true; even though the whole graphic novel (Libicki’s story) is based on actual events. I think she was trying to show that this uprising and these riots actually took place, especially the one where the 12 year old is killed on tape while his father is trying to protect him. This death that was caught on tape was real and it shows how real the incident was during the early 2000s between Israel and Palestine. These illustrations continue on to page 38 and 39. On page 39 there is a picture of Arafat in frame three that looks like it was drawn or reproduced right from a tv screen. I really think that Libicki was trying to show how real these events were in Israel and her drawings of them show the realism.

A little Confusing?

Throughout my reading of Miriam Libicki's Jobnik!, I was a little confused about many things that were written about in the graphic novel. The reading was very confusing and it made very little sense to me. It seems like the book really had no specific plot other than Libicki's experience in the Israeli army, (maybe this is the main plot?). So, with that being said; What is the plot of this story? I ask this question because it seems like it jumps around and discusses things that are irrelevant to a point that is trying to be made. The story starts out with Libicki saying that she hasn't written in her journal in over a year and starts discussing the stuff that's going on in her life. But as you read through the story it just seems like she has a lot of personal struggles that don't seem to necessary have a meaning. Maybe I just didn't understand the story or I read it to fast but it made no sense to me. I do think that Miriam Libicki was very brave to enlist in the Israeli army, after all there was and is so much tension between Israel and Palestine that it would be scary being enlisted in the Israeli army, this is even brought up in the graphic novel of the war that happened in the early 2000’s between Israel and Palestine. I do think that Miriam Libicki is sexually confused/looking for love in wrong places. It seems like she sleeps with every guy that she meets and then is kicked to the street for one reason or another. In a way I really felt sorry for Libicki because it seemed like every guy she met was just trying to get her in bed. Maybe re-reading the graphic novel again would help, it was difficult for me to read because of how it seemed to jump around (especially the part where she was in Canada with friends. I don’t understand the point of this being in the story).

I am a Jew, I am a Muslim, I am a Christian

Joann Sfar makes, or seems to make, an extremely public statement pertaining to the fact that Arab Muslims and Jews can live together peacefully and even become friends. It’s common knowledge that Muslims and Jews have a long and bad history with how they treated one another. However, to see in Rabbi’s Cat that the rabbi and the Muslim were friends was a surprise, to say the least. It is also known that fundamental Muslims (along with some fundamental Jews and Christians) despise other faiths, and will do everything necessary to show it, (i.e. September 11th). I found it very profound that Sfar included this encounter with the rabbi and the Muslim in his book, to see the friendship they both shared (since they both had the same teacher or “ancestor” as the book describes, pg. 84). I think Sfar was trying to show that people of different faith, especially Arab Muslims and Jews, could get along peacefully and be friends. This goes against some common stereotypes that Jews and Muslims can’t or won’t get along. I’m not exactly sure what Sfar’s point was in putting this in his story. Maybe he wanted to make a political statement that although Jews and Muslims have had a bad history, they can still put that behind them and get along. Going with that, the French in this story were racist to both the Arabs and the Jews and maybe Sfar was trying to show that if people stick together (especially those who are persuctued) they can make a difference in society. Or maybe Sfar just wanted to put it in his story, maybe he had no reason at all for putting it in there but to show that the rabbi had a friend who just happened to be a Muslim. Either way, I think Sfar was making a statement that people of different faiths can get along and can even work together/be friends. It’s too bad that in today’s society there is so much racism toward people of different religions.

holy cat Batman!!!

There are a lot of Jewish themes in Joann Sfar’s Rabbi’s Cat. Most themes are presented in a comical way that actually shows issues of Judaism in a humorous way. When the main character, the cat, is able to talk after eating a parrot all heck seems to break lose about an issue that pertain to the Jewish religion, which is presented in a humorous way. The cat is accused of lying to his master about eating the parrot, which in fact is truth, the cat did eat the parrot. After a brief discussion between the cat and his master, the cat is taken to the head Rabbi to see if the cat can have a bar-mitzvah (which is funny). The head Rabbi is a stereotypical rabbi who thinks he is high and mighty and tries to display his power by outwitting the cat, but in actuality he is very contradicting. In one instance, the cat asks the rabbi to “show him a picture of god” (pg 11). The Rabbi tells him that “god is a word” (pg. 11). My question is, how does the rabbi know what God looks like? By saying this, he contradicts himself by first saying “god made man in his own image” (pg 11) and then saying “god is a word” (pg 11). If that were the case wouldn’t human beings be words since god has no image and is a word, according to the Rabbi? I also found it hysterical that the cat convinced the rabbi that he himself is god and that he is “not at all satisfied with his (rabbi) behavior” (pg 13). It was very amusing to then see the rabbi getting on his knees and asking the cat for forgiveness. It’s also somewhat ironic that the rabbi thinks the cat should be drowned after he finds out that the cat is not god. What kind of rabbi would want to kill another creature, especially after the rabbi accuses the cat of being in the wrong because he killed a parrot, and yet, the rabbi wants to kill the cat because of blasphemy; how contradictory. These scenes in the Graphic novel show stereotypes of a mean, contradicting rabbi in an amusing way.

Ghost sibling rivalry

Although Art’s brother Richieu died during the holocaust, there was still, according to Art, sibling rivalry. This ghost sibling rivalry is only mention briefly in Art’s Graphic Novel Maus, but it shows a major problem Art had as being a child of Holocaust survivors. Art never got to know his brother, since he was born a few years after the war, however he feels that his parents still act as if Richieu is alive. Art said he would wonder all the time if he could compare to his brother. I think he said something along the lines of “my brother would probably be a doctor and marry a weathy Jewish girl, the creep”. I think Art wondered when he was a child if he and his brother would have gotten along, or if they would always be trying to one up each other to get their parents attention. I wonder if Art even thought of his whole sense of living, meaning, if Richieu would have survived the war, would his parents have wanted another child? Thus, Art not being born. I think Art always had to compete with his brother even though his brother was dead. He would say things along the lines of “The photo (of Richieu) never threw tantrums or got in any trouble…it was an ideal kid, and I was a pain in the ass, I couldn’t compete”. I wonder if Art feels that his parents loved his brother more than they did him. With these examples being brought forth, I wonder if Art thought that he was born only to replace Richieu, since Art felt he could never be as perfect as him. Richieu would always be better because he was dead and made no mistakes, he was the perfect child while Art probably felt he was a bad child.

Not so happy ending

Is it just me, or did Maus’s ending just come to an abrupt halt? There were so many questions left not answered. Such as: Did Art and his father every patch up their broken relationship? Did Vladek die soon after the book finished, or did he live for a while? The end of the story to me was both happy and sad. It was happy for the fact that Vladek and Anja got back together at the end of the war after both thought that each other was dead. They were also blessed with having another child in America, which is non other than Art. Besides these reasons of happiness, the story ends with sadness. It’s great that Anja and Vladek survived the holocaust and were reunited toward the end of the story, however, the mere fact that Anja later goes on to kill herself is sorrowful. She survives the horrific holocaust, but do to possible mental illness, ends her very own life; leaving Art disconnected and Vladek in a state of grief. Art and his father never had a good relationship which makes it hard for me to read the end of the story. It would have been nice to know if the two eventually smoothed out their problems and grew closer to each other. However, the saddest part of it all for me is that Vladek is so confused at the end of the story that he mistakes Art’s name for his dead brother. It kind of leaves the reader feeling sorry for both Art and Vladek. The last frame is also very troublesome, since it shows Art’s parents tombstone. This story just leaves me with a sense of sadness for all the losses Anja, Vladek, and Art had.

Not able to connect

It’s apparent when you read Art Spiegelman’s Maus, that there is a wall built between Art and his father Vladek. In the opening pages of the story, Art is a child skating with some of his friends, as he is skating he falls and his friends make fun of him. Art then goes crying to his father who asks him “why do you cry, Artie”? Art then tells him and Vladek replies “Friends? Your Friends? If you lock them together in a room with no food for a week then you could see what it is, Friends. You understand later in the story that Vladek was in hiding with fellow Jews who he considered friends. When they were in hiding together, food was scarce and they all got hostile towards one another until eventually they gave up or got caught when they were trying to find food (as did the Jew on page 126 who agreed to bribe the guard). I think Vladek had a hard time connecting with his son, and the same way Art had a hard time connecting with Vladek. Art says that he “hasn’t seen his father in a long time” in the beginning of the story because they “weren’t that close”. Drawing from this and from the food example I think Vladek pushed his son Art away because he was unable to connect with him. At the same time I think Art had a hard time connecting with his father because he had no idea (until later on when he interviewed his father) what his father had exactly gone through before, during, and after the Holocaust. Maybe trust was an issue for Vladek, since, going back to the food example, Jews would incidentally put others and themselves in danger, in hope to save the group and themselves. I don’t think it’s until Art writes Maus that he truly understands his father.

I am a Filthy Jew: the dehumanization of the Jews

Just because Art Spiegelmen’s Maus is a graphic novel, it doesn’t mean that it’s not hard to read (meaning hard to swallow/depressing). After all, the story is based around Art’s father, Vladek, who survived the sheer terror of the holocaust. There are, however, specific examples that I in particular had a hard time with; all having nothing directly to do with Jewish extermination, but Jewish dehumanization. On page 35 there are three frames that I really had a hard time reading. The first had to do with the Nazis taking away a Jew’s business and forcing him to leave the country. Just the fact that the Jewish person had to give his business up without any profit and flee the country shows pure hatred. The next slide is one that I had the hardest time with; it depicts a Jew sitting in a wagon holding a sign that states “I AM A FILTHY JEW”. This is just pure humiliation and detestation that the Nazis put these Jews through that makes a person wonder Why? Why did this have to happen? Why to the Jews? How could a human being do this to another human being? The last frame that really depresses me is the one proceeding the “Filthy Jew” frame. This frame shows two Nazis holding and beating Jews. It also states at the bottom that these Jews disappeared and no one heard from them again. I just can’t imagine the horror and fear the Jews felt in the beginning part of the holocaust. Don’t get me wrong, the parts in the story that discuss and depict Jews being killed also shocked and depressed me. It’s just that if I put myself in a Jewish persons shoes living in this time in Germany, I would be scared wondering things such as; When will I disappear? Where will I go? What will happen to me/my family? Why is this happening to my people? And maybe even Where is God? These poor Jews not only had to worry about these things, but also after getting captured they had to worry about facing death by gassing or shooting. Those who survived the holocaust are true heroes and my heart goes out to them. It’s too bad superman isn’t real, maybe he could have saved the Jews from the holocaust.

Grief driven superheroes

Superheroes have a tendency to be victims before they became superheroes. Sometimes it is their victimization, or loss of loved ones, that cause them to fight evil and injustice. Comparing three superheroes; Superman, Batman, and Spiderman, all have factors in common. Superman was sent to Earth because his planet was going to be destroyed. Upon his arrival to earth (and becoming an adult), he became a superhero. It can be interpreted that he fights crime to avenge the death of his family and people on his home planet. Superman has this “peace maker” like characteristic that even drives him to help fight the Nazis during World War two. Batman is a very unique superhero (and by far my favorite). Batman’s parents died in front of him at a young age, both robbed and shot in cold blood. When you read the original comics it shows a young Bruce Wayne (aka Batman) vowing to fight evil to avenge his parents death. Bruce then trains himself in Martial Arts and becomes a scientist in which he then uses in becoming a superhero. It also helps that Bruce is a Billionaire, which comes in handy with all the state of the art gadgets he uses to fight crime. Spiderman is also a unique character. When Peter Parker first became Spiderman he used his powers to show off and to win money. It wasn’t until a thug shot and killed his uncle did Spiderman turn superhero. Again, Spiderman turns superhero to avenge his uncles death. So, what does this all say about the origins of three popular superheroes? It seems to me that grief plays an ultimate factor in the actions of these superheroes. Reflecting on this grief idea, I think I would do the same thing if I was in the shoes of one of these superheroes. People need superheroes, and I think that is also a motivating factor to why these superheroes fight crime as well; they don’t want what happened to them to happen to someone else.

Magneto: Friend or Foe?

Not being a big reader of x-men comics, I had no idea who Magneto even was until I started reading the books required for the class. However, after reading some of the content that focuses on Magneto and the Holocaust, I was confused on whether Magneto was a villain or not. There were a few instances where Magneto was described as a villain because he attacks humans because he believes they will rebel against the mutants (Magneto and the x-men). But is Magneto really bad for doing this, after all he himself was a survivor of the holocaust? Isn't understandable why he would have wanted to attack the humans, after all, policies being made by the humans were along the same ideas of the policies the Nazis were making against Jews. Magneto feared an uprising of humans that would attack and persecute the mutants. Maybe Magneto has some post traumatic stress going on, thus the reason why he acts the way he does. Maybe going along with this (although this idea is completely different) this is why Israel believes in having a strong military; to protect them against the "enemies" that may want to start another holocaust. Thus, maybe Magneto has a hard time trusting people. He doesn't want to be persecuted again. With this being said, Professor X has the power to read and understand people's mind and thoughts. In one comic, Professor X read the mind of a holocaust survivor, therefore, alowing him to see the horrific things Jews experienced. It's even talked about that Professor X talked with Magneto about why he attacked humans and the impact the holocaust had on him. Professor X, knowing how horrible the holocaust was, also wants to prevent another one from happening, however he doesn't attack humans. During the time when the new X-men comics were coming out, the civil rights movement was a popular movement around the nation. I know this is somewhat of a stretch, but I think Professor X can be compared to Martin Luther King Jr. and Magneto to Malcom X. For the reasons of Professor X paralleling MLK Jr., he doesn't want another holocaust and he deals with racism and prejudice in a healthy way, through peace; on the other hand, Magneto is like Malcom X because he believes the only way to stop the prejudice and preventing another holocaust is to fight the humans to stop a potential problem before it happens (Malcom X wasn't a peacefull protestor usually). It's for these reasons Magneto isn't really a villan but yet a confused, hurt, person who doesn't want terrible things happening again.

Superman or "God"?

After looking more into it in class and after making my own assumptions, it is clear to me that Superman is a savior to all people; the Jews being no exception. I brought up the fact in class that I think the Jewish people needed a "savior" figure to save them from discrimination and persecution that took place during the 1930's through the 1950's. After all, the Jews could hardly find work at any job; once the owner knew of their Jewish heritage, their chance of getting the job was slim to none. Thus, the reason why a lot of Jews began working in the comic book industry, since after all, it was Jews who started the idea of the comic book. So, back on to superman; as you look at the plots and the story lines behind a lot of Superman comics you'll see he's always saving people from an evil villain or from criminals. Maybe the Jews purposely placed villains int he stories to symbolize the anti-Semitic ideology that seemed to encompass the lives of many Americans; and thus, they used Superman to fight the "anti-Semitic" symbol as a displacement for their anger and maybe as a way of God using or becoming superman to save them from evil. Especially when you look at the comic that was brought up in class from the late 90's where Superman travels back in time to Nazi Germany. Here you see Superman saving the Jews from the Nazis; when in actuality, the Jews prayed to God for their lives when they were imprisoned in the Concentration camps, but God never came. Maybe this comic is a "what-if" story, symbolizing what God could have done if he decided to save the Jews from the Nazis. Either way it seems to me that the Jews needed a savior, and through their need some created Superman (or other super heroes) to protect them from evil.

Bloody and gory stories

I can remember when I was little and I'd often visit my local comic book store when I still lived in Florida. I was really into horror movies when I was a kid, some of my favorites were the Friday the 13th movies, and zombie movies. Once when I was at the comic book store I ran across Tales from the Crypt comics, and remembering watching the television show, purchased some of them. I also remember going home and reading these comic and I remember how they literally scared the crap out of me. The pictures were so vivid and the story lines were very cleaver. Looking back, I remember how graphic the illustrations were as well. When I went through and read The Golden age part of From Krakow to Krypton: Jews and Comic Books, I came across on page 66 a discussion of a story in Tales from the Crypt #35 titled "Midnight Mess". It gave a description from this story and I was in shock to discover that I owned this copy of Tales from the Crypt when I was little and I remember how incredibly graphic this story was. I remember very well that at the end of the story, a group of vampires attack this man at a vampire bar and stick a spigot in his neck, filling their glasses with the mans blood as if it were beer. I also recall reading in From Krakow to Krypton: Jews and Comic Books, the publicity Tales from the Crypt got, due to the fact kids were reading these comics and the parents did not approve. We also have to remember that this was the 1950's so graphic depiction of horror and gore in comic books would have been a major problem in the "Leave it to Beaver" society if you will. I just find it interesting that parents had such a problem with these comic books then because they thought it would scare there kid; with that being said, I don't see how these kids weren't scared especially during that time and here I am in the late 90's early 2000's reading these comic and being scared (and shocked at the graphic depictions of death).

Coming of age and finding one's self in Cookalein

In the fourth and final book in Will Eisner's, A Contract With God, there is a family who is going through, or will go through major problems.  This family is sent to camp Cookalein because their husband/father want them gone for the summer. The older woman named Fannie in the story is sent there by her husband because her husband wants to spend the summer with his mistress. This shows how some Jewish men acted during the time when Will Eisner was growing up. It is said that this Graphic novel is somewhat of a memoir of Will Eisner's life, Is it possible that his father was having an affair on his mother when he was growing up. Going off of that is the character of Willie, who, by no choice of his own is forced to go to the camp Cookalein for the summer (Willie is the son of the cheating father and older mother). There at a dance one night, Willie meets this attractive woman, Maralyn. Maralyn thinks Willie is 19 or 20 (he's 15) and decides to sneak out of her room at night to meet Willie in a barn for sex. After the two have sex, Maralyn's husband suprises her and Willie because he caught his wife, Maralyn, cheating. Maralyn tells her husband that she has needs after her husband physically assults her and then the two have sex in front of Willie. Looking at how Willie acts through the rest of the book shows he is confused by this incident; after all, it is assumed he was a virgin. This obviously had a major impact on him. Again, since this is somewhat of a memoir, are we to assume Will Eisner is the character of Willie in the book. Did this happen to him? Or maybe to someone he knew or was close to? There has to be some significance of why this was put in his graphic novel unless we are to assume that this part was entirely made up. Willie had a major coming of age experience and due to the last page of the book with him standing outside on the balcony, it diffently confused him in some shape or form.

A Contract Broken

As I was reading, A Contract with God by Will Eisner, there were three things that really struck me as interesting or as somewhat disturbing. The first thing that was really interesting and sad was in the first part of the Graphic Novel; specifically the main characters "broken" contract with God. It seemed to me that the main character was a little ignorant to the fact that nothing bad would happen to him in his life. His life seemed to be going great until he lost his only daughter and turned his back on God. Although later he made a new contract (and died) the whole idea that he lost faith was kind of sad to read.
        The second and third thing that I found interesting and yet disturbing was the concept of nudity/sex in a graphic novel. Sure, it's all over the media, however, i was never really exposed to sex/nudity in a graphic novel before (maybe its because I only read Batman...I know, I should step out of my box). What sort of left me with an uneasy feeling was the part of the Graphic Novel about the slumlord who was asked by a child to touch her. I'm not exactly sure why it left me a little uneasy, maybe it's just the fact that children (in all the cases I've heard about) do not instigate being molested. Although this made me a little uneasy, I still really enjoyed A Contract with God and would say it was honestly one of the best graphic novels I've read.