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.