In our ASTU class we finished reading and taking apart feminist scholar Hillary Chutes article on the graphic novel Persepolis, written by Marjane Satrapi. Her article discusses many aspects of Satrapi’s work, but her main argument surrounds the idea that the style of comics do something differently than that of text in the way they approach narrative. She argues that “complex visualizations in many graphic narrative works require a rethinking of the dominant tropes of unspeakability, invisibility and inaudibility that have tended to characterize recent trauma theory”. (Chute, 93) The sections of her article focus on the child’s eye view that her graphic narrative forces us into, the style of that graphic narrative and the way it conveys her view through lenses of memory. And finally the way the first person lense of memory (testimony) shows us the ordinary nature of violence in Iran through the arrangement and style of graphics. In my blog post this week I would like to discuss and compare the style of two graphic narratives of trauma, and how they both use lenses of memory to depict trauma in two separate, but meaningful ways based on chutes argument and my thoughts on both texts.
The second graphic narrative I will be talking about is Art Speigelman’s Maus series (specifically Maus II). When I moved into residence at UBC this year, I brought along a few of the books I own, and the ones that I thought would interest me, and I might like to read again. Among those I brought Maus II (not sure why I don’t have Maus) and after our summary and discussion of Chutes article in class I thought I would skim it to see what I could gather in regards to a second graphic narrative, and maybe apply chutes ideas to it. Not surprisingly I got engrossed in the book and realized that the two books, while seemingly visually and thematically similar are very different due to the different lenses of memory and therefore the stylistic components of the work, and how they convey trauma in two separate ways.
There is so much to talk about in relation to the two narratives, but the first thing that I noticed is that they are both drawn in only black and white. Chute points out that Satrapi decided to do this based on the normalcy of violence in Iran, and her thought that writing in colour reduces the realism of this violence and the power of the work. I find this in Maus as well, although the level of realism is contrary to the minimal, expressionist style in Persepolis, and is still effective. In fact at times the drawings can be quite realistic in the sense of portraying violence and harsh conditions. I wondered to myself why is this? Is minimal or realistic style better to convey trauma? My answer to the latter is that it depends, I believe it has to do with the lenses of memory at play for both authors. In class we discussed the idea of graphic narrative as a testimony. I think that in Satrapi’s work, as she experienced the trauma of the Iranian revolution first hand as a child, the minimalist expression of violence and her experience of that violence is powerful in the way that it forces the reader to imagine, and therefore understand her experience and the normalcy of violence in Iran. With Art Spiegelman’s work it is much harder to come to this conclusion.
Maus II deals mostly with Vladek (Auschwitz survivor) and his cartoonist son. The graphic novel jumps from their interactions post-Auschwitz, to Vladek’s stories to his son about his experience in Auschwitz. The style of art does not change between these two time frames, and neither does Vladek’s “out of tune” English. At the same time Speigelman’s visuals of his experience are very brutal when accompanied with Vladek’s voice, they portray shootings, visuals of German gas chambers, beatings, and starvation all encompassed in Speigelman’s genius metaphor of portraying certain ethnicities as different animals. The Jewish people are mice and the Germans cats. I could go on for a long time on the significance of such a metaphor on the work but I am concerned with the broad idea, why this metaphor? Why did he not draw them as people, wouldn’t this be more effective in portraying the trauma that Vladek and millions of other Jews and POW’s experienced? Again I bring this back to our ASTU discussion of Testimony. Spiegelman, in comparison to Satrapi does not have the same authority in his testimony. We as the reader are getting this information and are interpreting these visual descriptions third hand. Spiegelman in writing this is not afforded the ability to write (or draw) as if this was his testimony. He cannot display the visuals of his father’s experience in the way that Satrapi displays hers, through expressionistic minimalism. It is as if he is in the place of the reader if he were reading Satrapi’s Persepolis. Satrapi’s testimony and style of narrative gives rise to the reader’s imagination of her trauma and her experience. This is like how only through Vladek’s stories can he grasp the unimaginably brutal trauma that Vladek experienced. Because of this, he must draw only his imagination of the brutality that Auschwitz prisoners experienced. We are still faced with this question of why not draw people? I believe that the fact that it happened to his own father brings him closer to what it actually may have felt like. The metaphor of people as animals therefore serves two purposes. It puts the author further away from the 1st hand experience that he is so close, and inherently attached to, by having an Auschwitz survivor as a father. This metaphor also serves the reader of the text by showing us the lenses of memory we must look through. The metaphor puts us in Spiegelman’s shoes, by trying to convey through the reality of what it must be like to be so close to a person who has experienced trauma firsthand what it must have actually been like to experience said trauma. In this way, Spiegelman’s use of lenses of memory, while not in the same style as Satrapi’s work, fit Spiegelman’s situation as an author and use the genre of graphic narrative as just as powerful of a tool as in Satrapi’s work in conveying the effect of trauma.
An example of this in Spiegelman’s work is in the panels that depict Vladek post-Auschwitz. We see how his experience of Auschwitz has shaped his reality. He will spend nothing if possible, save it for another day when it will be needed more. This lense of memory is particular to what Spiegelman’s graphic narrative is trying to show us, just as Satrapi’s child’s eye rendition and specific style show the reader the message she is trying to get across in a specific way. Both are valid as they convey different ways of portraying trauma and memory, through the medium of graphic narrative. If we relate this back to Chute’s argument for the purpose that graphic narrative serves, we see her point is proven in the comparison of the two graphic narratives and how they do something differently to re-work narrative. Different forms of graphic narratives and their style, lense, situation in history and the way they interact with the reader provides a personal, and adaptable, customizable way to share narratives so that they are powerful in their voice and broad in their scope. Something which is specific to the genre of graphic narratives, and which in some cases texts fail to do at such levels.