1

• 5-5:50:
⁃ Opening discussion
⁃ Opening of “Auschwitz (Time Flies)” chapter (Art as author)
⁃ Opening pages of comic (Representation of Francoise)
• 6-6:50:
⁃ Conflict between Art/Vladek’s perspectives (NO LATER THAN 6:20)
⁃ Hitchhiker scene (NO LATER THAN 6:30)
⁃ Photo of Vladek/related scene (NO LATER THAN 6:40)
⁃ Final scene (NO LATER THAN 6:45)
• 7-7:50:
⁃ Talk about issues from last assignment
⁃ Talk about final paper (essay itself, proposal, and bibliography)
⁃ Go over proposals (start no later than 7:30)

• Start: story about Spiegelman (highlights both the issues the book presents and
Spiegelman’s perspective on them)
⁃ Maus I is published in 1986, Maus II in 1991
⁃ Both are unprecedented success for comics, especially in terms of appealing to
readers who would have no interest in the medium otherwise
⁃ Maus II makes the NYT bestseller list (mark of prestige and attraction for a non-
traditional comics audience)
⁃ Bestseller list is divided into works of fiction and non-fiction: Maus is put on the
fiction list
⁃ Spiegelman writes letter to the editor (read quote)
⁃ NYT responds by eventually moving the comic to the non-fiction list
⁃ Before they do, an editor responds (informally; not in print) by suggesting
that they only classify the comic as non-fiction if they go to Spiegelman’s
house and a mouse answers the door
⁃ Highlights the complexities of the questions of how to depict history
⁃ Questions that are at the heart of Maus (as a whole)
⁃ Introduced in vol. 1, but tackled even more explicitly in vol. 2
⁃ As we see in the quotation, Spiegelman believes very deeply that this is a
work of non-fiction
⁃ Justifiably so: Spiegelman spent time interviewing his Holocaust
survivor father and doing extensive research to complement his
father’s perspective
⁃ P. 133 in vol. 1 (bottom tier): “I’ve just gotta write this
conversation down before I forget it”
⁃ Tape recorder at p. 73: Spiegelman puts an emphasis on his
commitment to accuracy
⁃ We’ll talk today about how Spiegelman does and
doesn’t continue this commitment in vol. 2
 2

⁃ At the same time, I think that Maus wants us to ask what a word
like “non-fiction” or “truth” even means in any context
⁃ All the more troublesome in the case of representing
histories of mass violence (true of representing the
Holocaust, also colonialism and slavery, as we saw in
previous weeks)
⁃ Vol. 1, p. 131 (last panel): “In some ways he’s just like the
racist caricature of the miserly old Jew”
⁃ Spiegelman acknowledges that his representation
of Vladek plays into Jewish stereotypes
⁃ Turn to next page: “I’m just trying to portray
my father accurately!”
⁃ Throws his hands up
⁃ Depiction of Vladek is inextricable from
stereotypes, but also the product of Art’s
commitment to accuracy
⁃ Interrogation of truth in the comic’s central means of
representation: the work is rooted in Spiegelman’s
interviews with Vladek and other research about the
Holocaust
⁃ On the other hand, the use of cartoon animals works
directly against the commitment to accuracy (I.e. In
every image, we see that this is a product of
Spiegelman’s imagination)
⁃ This is true, to some extent, with all comics:
we talked in Louis Riel about how Brown’s
voice constantly asserts itself through the
images, we saw the use of superhero and
Christlike imagery in Nat Turner
⁃ Reminding us that these historical
works are also the products of artists
with particular perspectives
⁃ *Maybe* (up for debate)
Spiegelman’s use of the animals
makes his artistic influence over the
depiction of the history even clearer
than in any work we’ve seen thus far
⁃ Spiegelman is grappling with these issues throughout both volumes of
Maus, and most in II

• Starting with title: “And Here My Troubles Began”

⁃ ASK: Refresh us on title last week/meaning (“My Father Bleeds History”)
 3

⁃ Again: multiple meanings, referring to multiple settings

ASK: do we see the “bleeding” in the Vol. II title?
⁃ Literal reference: Vla - “Here, in Dachau, my troubles began” (91,
1st tier)
⁃ Refers to a specific moment from Vladek’s experiences in
the Holocaust (after son has died, experienced Auschwitz,
been separated from his wife, etc.)
⁃ After all that, Vla says, “Here…my troubles began”
⁃ “Here” in the title, repeated in the comic, refers to Vladek’s
specific experience of being in a specific place at a specific
time
⁃ Reminding us of Spiegelman’s commitment to
accuracy (“here”) and determination to create a
work of non-fiction
⁃ ASK: what else might the title refer to?
⁃ Also describes Art’s issues w/ Maus (I.e. 41-47): He’s had success
beyond any cartoonist’s wildest dreams (I.e. Not only respect from
his peers, but widespread acclaim and critical attention for the
comic in a way the medium hasn’t experienced)
⁃ As we see, this has in no way ended issues (brought on new
slew of problems)
⁃ “And here my troubles began”: achievements w/
Maus (any cartoonist would be jealous), but only
the start of his problems
Again: “bleeding” together of Art/Vladek
• P. 41-47: Art questioning project altogether
⁃ ASK: what do we notice about the text here?
⁃ P. 41: verbal example of the juxtaposition of past and present (“bleeding”)
we see throughout the comic
⁃ Chronologies coming together through words, as they also do through
images
⁃ 1st tier, 2nd panel: parallel of Art’s experience w/ Vladek’s
⁃ “Vladek started working…” w/ “I started working…”
⁃ 2nd tier, 1st panel: juxtaposition of the birth of his daugther Nadja
and the death of the Jews
⁃ 3rd tier: comparing Art’s success w/ Anja’s suicide (“At least fifteen
foreign editions… She left no note”)
⁃ Art creates this massively successful comic book, and Anja
doesn’t even get to write a suicide note
⁃ Link w/ “Prisoner” panel: words link different settings (something we also
see in images) (p. 103)
 4

⁃ Contemporary suggestion of “menopausal depression” with the

suggestion of historical influence (“Hitler did it”)
⁃ Words are in the same panel, as are the images of her dead
body in the tub and the corpses of Holocaust victims
(juxtaposition of different chronologies)
⁃ Use of lowercase in speech balloons (ASK: where else do we have it?)
⁃ P. 11: Lowercase used to introduce us into the story
⁃ Lowercase separates when Spiegelman talks to us (i.e. The
reader) from the words of Art within story (in uppercase)
⁃ MOSTLY, we get lowercase as we do on p. 11 (I.e. In text boxes,
as narration guiding us through the story)
⁃ Here, as Spiegelman talks (in speech balloons) about the
story he’s telling and presents to us the perspectives of
others (also in lowercase) on the story he’s telling, we get
lowercase in word balloons
⁃ Mouse mask makes this character distinct from the Art we’ve met so far
⁃ P. 41-46: sometimes we see presence of masks, sometimes we don’t
⁃ Contrast masks w/ use of masks in Volume 1 (p. 136-155)
⁃ There, it was a purposeful act of hiding Jewishness from
the Nazis
⁃ We had the complexity of moments when masks were
visible and when they weren’t
⁃ Pig masks: characters hiding their Jewishness by
pretending to be the non-Kosher pigs
⁃ Here, Art and his therapist wear mouse mask (the identity Vladek
and Anja had to hide in I) and journalists wear other masks
⁃ ASK: if masks acted as a way for characters to hide Jewishness in I, what
do they do here?
⁃ Self-awareness of the way in which the comic has consciously
been crafted by Spiegelman: he chooses to depict Holocaust as he
does (I.e. Put the mouse mask on the story itself)
⁃ Mask reminds us that this is an artistic choice, and not the
reality of the world itself
⁃ Like the use of lowercase, the mask separates the character we’ve
seen talking to his father from the author of the comic (I.e. Who
we see here)
⁃ *But*, the mouse-mask person is created by an author as
well (we continue to be reminded of that in the animal
drawings, bearing the clear mark of Spiegelman’s
authorship)
 5

⁃ Mask calls attention, as Spiegelman often does, to ways in which the comic has
been purposefully crafted (also seen in chapter title) (ask: what can you tell me
about it?)
⁃ here, “Auschwitz” (name of concentration camp)
⁃ Corrective to previous chapter title: “Mauschwitz”
⁃ There, Spiegelman employs the cheap play on words to
keep the comic separate from the actual Holocaust (where
there was a very real Auschwitz)
⁃ Once we’re in the comic, we know that it’s Auschwitz, but
Spiegelman separates them at 1st (here they’re less distinct)
⁃ “Time flies” (inadequacy of metaphor)
⁃ Link back to p. 56 in vol 1: “we had to move mountains”
⁃ Metaphorical phrase, but also describes what Vladek
actually does
⁃ Calls attention to the inadequacy of metaphor to
represent the Holocaust (I.e. If metaphors are
supposed to exaggerate something, here we’re
confronted with the inability to exaggerate the
Holocaust)
⁃ Our entire story is told through metaphor:
Spiegelman calls attention to the inadequacy of his
entire project (think back to fiction/non-fiction
tension)
⁃ Likewise, here we have a metaphor made literal (“time flies when
you’re having fun”)
⁃ Irony of the very un-fun act of discussing the Holocaust w/
a survivor (emphasized by the image of the burning Jewish
victims)
⁃ Literal flies swarming the corpses (non-diegetic: calling
attention to the “bleeding” of the chronologies)
⁃ i.e. The victim of the Holocaust are inextricable
from Art’s present
⁃ “Time flies” contrasts with what we see in the beginning of the
chapter: time is not going forward, but Art is instead continuing to
be stuck in the past of the Holocaust
⁃ Like Vladek on the stationary bike in vol. 1, pedaling but
not going anywhere, Art continues to ruminate on the
Holocaust
 6

⁃ ASK: what about the visual depiction of the flies? Flies disrupt the
story contained within the panel by breaking out of it
⁃ Unlike the other title page images (contained within
panels), flies disrupt the contained space of the panel
Another use of animals, but here they’re clearly not
supposed to be people
⁃ (ASK: what else on page?) P. 41: corpses like crumpled paper underneath desk
⁃ (i.e. Holocaust/present day colliding/“bleeding”: especially w/ corpses in
“Prisoner” in vol. 1 [103])
⁃ They’re also the product of Art’s creation: sitting in this chair, at his desk,
he has created these corpses (what my office tends to look like)
⁃ Back to Vladek on the stationary bike in vol. 1: not moving forward,
expending effort of pedaling while continuing to relive his past experience
⁃ Here, Art continues to create Jewish corpses
⁃ P. 41: Nazi guard tower outside Art’s window (bottom panel)
⁃ “We’re ready to shoot!” (at this point, we don’t know that this refers to the
journalists)
⁃ The only frame of reference we have for these words comes from
the Nazi tower (I.e. Art as victim of Nazi shooting, as we’ve seen
that many Jews were)
⁃ As we end the page with the corpses, we’re left with the suspense of what
the “shoot” means
⁃ P. 42: we have the temporary relief of seeing that the shooting does not refer to
the Nazi tower we saw at the bottom of p. 41, but the journalists we see on p. 42
⁃ As we see their interrogation of Art (window without tower in 1st panel)
(think back to Dr. Manhattan’s hostile interview in Watchmen), we see that
the journalists aren’t something to be relieved by at all
⁃ P. 42: marketers/reporters talking with Spiegelman about work
⁃ Bottom of p. 42: shrinking Art (ask: what do we make of this?)
⁃ Art feeling powerless to deal with the pressure that Maus has
brought on (back to vol. 2 title)
⁃ Last tier: “I want…my mommy!” (double meeting of childishness
and Anja’s absence)
⁃ Who, of course, he can’t have, both due to her suicide and
the destruction of her diaries
⁃ Also important to think about w/ the fiction/non-fiction tension: a
deviation from reality that’s separate from the central animal
metaphor
⁃ Image of the shrinking Art gives credit to the classification
of the comic as “fiction”
⁃ *But*, the image is very true to what Art feels at this time
(non-fiction)
 7

⁃ P. 43: “Sometimes, I just don’t feel like a functioning adult” (ask: what’s here?)
⁃ Image of Art as child comes before this
⁃ 2nd tier: window has barbed wire and guard tower (“bleeding” of settings)
⁃ Art walks to therapist’s office: corpses litter the sidewalk (I.e. They’ve
gone beyond his office) (return of “spotlight motif” from I [35, 51, 69])
⁃ 3rd tier: animals in therapist’s office
⁃ Caption: “Can I mention this, or does it completely louse up my
metaphor?” (louse itself being a small insect)
⁃ Suggestion of honesty here: Spiegelman is presenting his
struggle with how to tell the story (undermined by the
tongue-in-cheek pun)
⁃ Bottom tier: “Framed photo of a pet cat. Really!”
⁃ *Somewhat* like rat on p. 147 in vol 1: reminding us that these
animals exist outside of Spiegelman’s metaphor
⁃ “Really!”: plea for the reader to take him seriously
⁃ Emphasizing the veracity of Art’s depiction
⁃ Direct contradiction of bottom of p. 16: “In real life you’d never
have let me talk this long without interrupting”
⁃ We’ve read this already, so it’s in our minds
⁃ Spiegelman is training us to doubt the completeness/
accuracy of anything in the comic
⁃ Now, when we see “really,” we know to be skeptical
⁃ P. 44-45: Art talking to therapist (ASK: how can we relate this scene [especially
45] to the comic as a whole?)
⁃ 2nd tier: “I’m not talking about YOUR book now, but look at how many
books have already been written about the Holocaust. What’s the point?
People haven’t changed” (45)
⁃ But, of course, therapist’s words *do* refer to Spiegelman’s book
(how could they not?)
⁃ Art chooses to present this conversation as he does (he
could have not shown a Holocaust survivor questioning the
very premise of the comic)
⁃ 3 tier: Therap - “Anyway, the victims who died can never tell
rd

THEIR side of the story, so maybe it’s better not to have any more
stories”
⁃ Maus works against this by featuring the voice of a
survivor, but still one filtered through someone who didn’t
experience the Holocaust firsthand
⁃ Notable voice we don’t get in the comic: Anja (she speaks
entirely through Art and Vladek)
 8

⁃ Page after quotation from Nazi newspaper: Richieu

(another voice we don’t get to hear)
⁃ Beckett quote (3rd tier, 45)
⁃ ASK: what does this quote mean? How does it relate to the comic?
⁃ Inability of words to capture life
⁃ Be careful with language: it contains *a lot*
⁃ Comic as a mitigation of this (sort of): a form that still uses
words, but does so in conjunction with images
⁃ As we’ve talked about, images do much of the
heavy lifting (I.e. Comic is inextricable from the
way in which it’s told)
⁃ “On the other hand, he said it”
⁃ Pointing out the contradiction of the quotation, and the
comic itself
⁃ Speaks to the essential challenge of Maus: how to represent
the unrepresentable
⁃ Art addresses this in the work’s very form: uses
words, but also uses images in a way that words on
their own could never do
⁃ Comes right after silent panel, in which Art, therapist, and
reader all ruminate on the quote
⁃ Art needs to speak to even bring up the contradiction (I.e.
Are words *really* unnecessary?)
⁃ “Maybe you can include it in your book”
⁃ Back to p. 133 in I: “I’ve just gotta write this conversation
down”
⁃ Art suggests his work’s fidelity to life (commitment
to being accurate and honest: here, he’s implying
that he takes the recommendation of someone he
represents in the comic)
⁃ At the same time, Art is clearly in control of
the representation (emphasized by his
drawing of himself as a child with a mouse
mask)
⁃ Irony that including it in the book requires words (Beckett
himself was a prolific writer)
⁃ P. 46: 1st 3 tiers - q’s of representation continue—both practical issues (how to
draw tin shop) and emotional issues (struggle to visualize and experience feeling)
⁃ 2 kinds of representation that concern comic: feeling of being in the
Holocaust and the images of the Holocaust
⁃ Feeling: Therapist scares him
 9

⁃ Cartoonish, like the comic itself (particularly w/ Art

jumping off of his seat)
⁃ Spiegelman continues to use the cartoonishness that he
does throughout the work (image epitomizes it)
⁃ Issue of visualizing the tin shop: shows Art’s attention to detail/
commitment to accuracy
⁃ Irony: In depicting the people as animals, none of the
comic looks accurate
⁃ *But*, as with the therapist scaring Art, maybe
cartoonishness is the best way for Spiegelman to accurately
represent the Holocaust (i.e. representing unrepresentable)
⁃ Like tape recorder and Art drawing himself actively recording
conversations in vol. 1, Spiegelman shows us that he wants to get
things straight (tape recorder again at p. 47)
⁃ Asking a survivor to explain what the tin shop looks like
⁃ Ends the page by telling us that maybe he won’t be that
committed to accuracy: “Maybe I could show the tin shop
and not draw the drill press. I hate to draw machinery”
⁃ Here, Spiegelman reminds us that *he* controls the
story (not Vladek, or any other survivor)
⁃ As Art talks about not drawing the drill press, he grows back into
an adult
⁃ “Polyptych”: continuous background w/ Art walking across
it, re-growing (giving more info about passage of time)
⁃ Allows us to follow Art’s progression across the
single background (contrast w/ the disruption in
time from Art changing size)
⁃ P. 47: Tape recorder as Art listens to interview (ask: what do we see here?)
⁃ Back to full size
⁃ Vladek is complaining about his issues w/ Mala and money (“old
miserly jew” that we’ve seen throughout the comic)
⁃ “Let’s get back to Auschwitz”: Art tries to steer the discussion back
to what he wants to talk about (I.e. The Holocaust)
⁃ Vladek continues to complain about money
⁃ Change in font size: tells us that Art is yelling at Vladek to talk
about the Holocaust (“Enough!”)
⁃ Vladek finally does go back to talking about the Holocuast (return
to normal font size)
⁃ Art changes back to child size (ASK: why?)
⁃ Irony: Art gets what he wants (I.e. Vladek to talk about the
Holocaust instead of his money problems) (ASK: so why
make him a child here?)
 10

⁃ Art realizes that he’s yelling at a Holocaust survivor

to make him talk about the Holocaust
⁃ Makes Art feel childish and immature
⁃ Fiction/non-fiction: image of Art magically
changing size does suggest the fictitiousness of the
comic, but also a non-fictitiousness in the fidelity to
experience
⁃ Author Art (man in mouse mask) gives last words (last lowercase) before
returning to the story (I.e. Vladek’s retelling of the Holocaust) - “sigh”
⁃ No other way to cope with the magnitude of the issues he’s introduced
(back to Art throwing his hands up at p. 132 in I)
⁃ But, of course, we’re holding a way in which he has attempted to
grapple with this experience
⁃ OVERALL: “here my troubles began” can refer to both Vladek’s experience of
the Holocaust (as Spiegelman identifies) and Art’s experience of writing Maus
⁃ Again: the “bleeding” of history we have referenced in vol. 1 title
• At beginning of “Auschwitz” chapter, we have the questions of historical representation
that are at the heart of Maus
⁃ Spiegelman sets us up for the importance of these questions to the work at the
very beginning
⁃ P. 11: starts w/ question of representation (ask: what’s going on here?)
⁃ i.e. Art is struggling with it
⁃ Specifically the problem of how to represent his wife, Francoise (a Jewish
woman)
⁃ First image we see in II is the range of his drafts of how to draw his wife
⁃ She sees herself as undeniably Jewish because she converts (we can’t
disagree), and yet Art wonders how to draw her within his animal scheme
⁃ Link back to p. 102—Vladek saying Jewish prayer and Art reciting from
the Tibetan Book of the Dead in the same panel in “Prisoner”: Spiegelman
struggles with the question of what it means to be Jewish
⁃ In that panel, we see the tension between Art and Vladek illustrated
through their very different relationships with Judaism (a tension
depicted by Art)
⁃ That continues here, as he wonders whether or not his converted Jewish
wife should be depicted as a Jew
⁃ In this issue of representation, Art questions what it even means to
be Jewish (I.e. He speculates that maybe a converted Jew shouldn’t
be drawn as a Jew)
⁃ Complexity that we see from a man who identifies himself as
Jewish (I.e. through drawing himself as a mouse) but recites from
the Tibetan Book of the Dead at his Jewish mother’s funeral (while
his father says a Hebrew prayer)
 11

⁃ P. 14-16: Conversation between Art and Francoise (we get an explanation of why
Art wants to write about the Holocaust at all, and why he does it the way he does)
(ask: what about this conversation is significant to the comic?)
⁃ “I mean, I can’t even make any sense out of my relationship with my
father…how am I supposed to make any sense out of Auschwitz? … Of
the Holocaust?” (14, 3rd tier)
⁃ Essential struggle of book: figuring out how to represent
something he can’t understand
⁃ Struggle w/ both the Holocaust itself and his personal relationship
w/ his father (I.e. Struggles w/ father in part because of the
Holocaust)
⁃ Issues that he’s discussing w/ therapist on p. 46: how to capture
both what the Holocaust looked like and how it felt
⁃ “I know this is insane, but I somehow wish I had been in Auschwitz with
my parents so I could really know what they lived through! I guess it’s
some kind of guilt about having had an easier life than they did” (16, 2nd
tier)
⁃ Suggestion of possible motivation for the book (to experience)
⁃ I.e. He gets to do that (SORT OF) by writing the book
⁃ But, of course, he doesn’t actually have the experience of
living through Auschwitz
⁃ Emphasized by the cartoonishness of the talking animals
⁃ Specific mode of representation: “There’s so much I’ll never be able to
understand or visualize. I mean, reality is too complex for comics…so
much has to be left out or distorted” (16, last tier)
⁃ Literal explanation of why Art draws the book as he does
(distortion is exactly what he does throughout the comic)
⁃ Back to p. 46: regardless, still trying to imagine details
⁃ With those details, and the distortion used to emphasize Art’s experience,
the work still gets the “non-fiction” label
⁃ *But*, it’s nonfiction presented in the only way Spiegelman sees
as fit (I.e. Because “reality is too complex”)
⁃ Next panel: “See what I mean…In real life you’d never let me talk this long
without interrupting”
⁃ Spiegelman openly reminding us that this is a comic
⁃ Somewhat comparable to scene at p. 133 in I: “I’ve just gotta write this
conversation down before I forget it!”
⁃ There, Art is calling attention to his commitment to accuracy
(while openly highlighting his work’s essential inaccuracy in every
drawing)
⁃ Here, Spiegelman states explicitly that we’re not meant to treat the comic
as having a 1-to-1 relationship with life
 12

⁃ I.e. A comic with talking animal people who magically change

sizes can still be “non-fiction”
⁃ Link back to p. 12 in vol. 1: at the very beginning of the work,
Spiegelman’s meticulous crafting highlights the careful construction of
this narrative
⁃ Tells us that, unlike the messiness of life, this comic has been
carefully designed by Spiegelman to tell both his story and his
father’s (the two are inextricable) as he sees fit
⁃ At p. 16 in vol. 2, Art calls our attention to the discrepancy between the
comic and reality even more explicitly (as w/ the layout on p. 12,
Spiegelman reminds us that this work has been crafted in a very particular
way from his own perspective)
• Just as Art has a particular perspective, Maus also shows us how Vladek’s own
perspective on the Holocaust is limited to his subjectivity (even as he has the authenticity
of being a survivor)
⁃ ASK: how does this become apparent in the comic?
⁃ P. 54: orchestra scene (top 2 tiers) (ask: what do you see here?)
⁃ Art draws orchestra playing
⁃ Vladek insists that he doesn’t remember them
⁃ In response, Art shows prisoners in front of orchestra, but the
instruments still poke out
⁃ I.e. Art still controls the representation
⁃ Art draws orchestra *before* asking Vladek about it
⁃ Drawing suggests that there were too many bodies for Vladek to
see
⁃ Reminds us of the importance of perspective: Vladek has
*one* view of the Holocaust, and it conflicts with the
historical record (even though Vladek experienced it)
⁃ P. 68: timeline (ASK: what do you see here?)
⁃ THINK back to calendar from Maus I (I.e. P. 99 and 104) (ASK:
does anyone remember?)
⁃ Also: “keep your story chronological” line (82—refer back
to notes)
⁃ (i.e. in spite of story being very anti-chronological)
In those images, Spiegelman calls attention to the problem of time in his representation (but its
importance nonetheless)
⁃ Conflict between Art/Vladek: Art wants to be precise about time,
but Vla is less concerned (I.e. 3rd tier - “So? Take less time to the
black work. In Auschwitz we didn’t wear watches”)
⁃ Art is concerned w/ precision (I.e. Tape recorder, “I’ve just
gotta write this conversation down before I forget it!”)
 13

⁃ Since we end up with the diagram in the comic, Art’s desire for
precision wins out (I.e. He reminds us that he controls the story—
as w/ orchestra)
⁃ Timeline interrupts Vladek’s speech quite literally in 1st tier
—juts into his speech balloon, which ends w/ Art cutting
him off
⁃ Also covers up part of image of Vladek in 1st and 2nd
tiers
⁃ Francoise’s speech balloon covers it up in the 3rd tier
⁃ Back to beginning of II: starts w/ Art being concerned w/
how to represent Francoise
⁃ There, the decision to represent her as a mouse
appears to come more from her desire than Art’s
(reflected in speech balloon covering up Art’s
timeline)
⁃ Fra in last tier: “I was worried. You were gone a long time”
⁃ Ironic because Art/us have been listening to this
story in which Vladek has been separated from his
wife for much longer and under threat of Holocaust
⁃ Again: “bleeding” of history (ways in which
stories overlap)
⁃ Also: reminds us of the difference between
Art/Vladek’s perspectives (Art and
Francoise *aren’t* in the Holocaust, so the
trivial separation compared to what Vladek
and Anja experience feels like a big deal)
⁃ Art gets to have the last word in the context of the comic: solves
the problem as he sees fit
⁃ *Also* think back to Art’s specificity w/ dates on p. 41 (specific
references to days on which things happen)
⁃ We see here that dates are a preoccupation for Art (who
tells us the story)
⁃ Contrasts w/ Vladek: “So?… In Auschwitz we didn’t wear
watches”
⁃ Direct connection between Vladek being a survivor
and his lack of interest in time
⁃ *But* Art isn’t a survivor, and this, in part, allows him to
be more interested in time
⁃ As we have throughout both volumes, we see the
discrepancy between Art and Vladek
 14

⁃ Reminds us of just how important it is that Art is the

one who ultimately presents us this story, as much
as he incorporates Vladek’s voice
⁃ Even Vladek’s voice is presented through the filter
of Spiegelman
⁃ Link w/ orchestra scene: in both cases, we have a tension between
objective record (I.e. Historical documentation of the orchestra and
specificity of timeline) and Vladek’s subjective experience (I.e. Not seeing
the orchestra and not having a watch)
⁃ Art gives room for Vladek’s subjectivity, but through the filter of
Art’s subjectivity
⁃ Other evidence of Vladek’s voice (filtered through Art): representation of
Anja
⁃ Vol. 1 ends w/ us learning of the destruction of Anja’s diaries
⁃ One chance we have to get some semblance of her voice
turns out to no longer exist
⁃ P. 53: Vla’s subjectivity in the representation of Anja
⁃ Vladek describes her as being too weak to hold soup cans
(2nd tier)
⁃ Vla, meanwhile, presents himself as the hero who smuggles
bread to Anja
⁃ Would Anja’s perspective be different? We don’t know, but
we also don’t have a chance to find out (she dies and
Vladek burns her diaries)
⁃ Instead, we get Vladek’s story of the Holocaust (in which
he heroically shares food with his wife), as presented
through Art
⁃ As we see, Vladek’s perspective is very much his own (I.e. Hitchhiker scene - p.
98-100)
⁃ P. 98, 3rd tier: Vla - “All such things of the war, I tried to put out from my
mind once for all…until you rebuild me all this from your questions”
⁃ Think back to Vladek on the bike in vol. 1: expending effort of pedaling
while not going anywhere
⁃ i.e. Reliving memories of the Holocaust for Art’s benefit keeps
Vladek from moving forward
⁃ Reminds us that Art is the only reason this project even exists, as much as
he centers Vladek’s voice
⁃ In Holocaust story: Vladek has just left Dachau, and he heads for
Switzerland
⁃ Free of the Nazis’ grip, but he’ll soon go to the US, where he’ll
experience American racism
 15

⁃ *But* here, although he might still be the target of racism,

he’s now in a position to discriminate against others (I.e. As
he does against the hitchhiker)
⁃ Links w/ the intertwining of the Holocaust and American
(anti-black) racism seen through the use of talking animal
characters (I.e. Connection between American racism and
early animation)
⁃ Use of Polish (translated below) (ASK: why do this? does it remind you of
other things in comics we’ve read?)
⁃ Maybe comparable to the untranslated French w/ Scott in Louis
Riel (Brown might even have gotten the idea from Spiegelman)
⁃ There, we experience Scott’s reality of being unable to hear
what people are saying as he’s about to die (we share his
subjectivity)
⁃ Here, we share the hitchhiker’s experience (we assume) of being
unable to understand the Polish
⁃ P. 99, 2 tier to p. 100 3rd tier: conflict between Vladek and Francoise
nd

⁃ Art in the middle (visually), throughout

⁃ Back to beginning: vol. 2 opens w/ Art figuring out how to
represent Francoise in the comic
⁃ i.e. Art wants to give her a presence, but he struggles to
figure out how to do it
⁃ P. 12, 2nd tier: Fra - “I only converted to make Vladek
happy”
⁃ Conversion is the reason she says that she should be
drawn as a mouse
⁃ A decision made directly *because* of
Vladek
⁃ Even though she clearly expresses here that
she wants to be a mouse, her being a mouse
only makes sense because of what Vladek
wants
⁃ Back to hiker scene: Art is continuing to struggle to figure out how
to interact w/ Francoise in the context of the comic
⁃ P. 100, Top tier: Francoise’s side of the argument and
Vladek’s, separated by tree
⁃ 2nd tier: argument continues between Francoise and Vladek
⁃ Art registers frustration in 1st panel (visually), but
cares more about lighting his cigarette than trying to
intervene
 16

⁃ Letting Vladek give his own perspective, as Art

does throughout the comic itself (But not! Because
we get everything through Art’s talking animals)
⁃ 3 tier: Art finally does intervene, but only to tell Francoise
rd

that it’s not worth trying to argue w/ Vla (not to support

her)
⁃ Vla gets last word in 2nd panel: “Better we’ll just
forget it”
⁃ We see Francoise still visibly frustrated: her voice is
overwhelmed by Vladek’s within the scene, and by
Art in the comic as a whole
⁃ bottom tier: Vladek drawn in black
⁃ Mice are drawn as black silhouettes at various times
in the comic, but here we have the added resonance
of the comparison with the black hitchhiker (who
we’ve just seen be discriminated against by Vladek,
himself a survivor of violent discrimination)
⁃ Other reference to stealing (ASK: what is it?)
⁃ P. 113: both link w/ American racism and connection between
Vladek’s experience in Holocaust and present day
⁃ W/ hitchhiker, Vladek accuses him of stealing
⁃ Here, German woman accuses Jews of stealing
⁃ Draws out connection between discrimination in
different contexts
⁃ Just as Art doesn’t support Anja, here the American soldier
says, “You’ll have to give ‘em back, Willie” (2nd tier)
⁃ Art also admits to stealing: further emphasizes the irony of
him saying that black people are completely different from
Jews because blacks steal
• Vladek gets the last word in the hitchhiker scene, even as he’s hypocritically accusing a
whole group of people of being thieves, and whose photograph do we get? (Vladek’s)
⁃ P. 134: photograph (actual) of Vladek
⁃ Vol. 1, p. 13 (1st tier): Vla describes himself as “a nice, handsome boy” (we
agree!)
⁃ Vol. 2, p. 33 (2nd tier): “Always I was handsome…”
⁃ Vladek w/ well-fitting uniform (But only gets it for collaborating
w/ Kapo)
⁃ Contrast w/ Mandelbaum on p. 29 (uniform *doesn’t* fit)
⁃ Context of Vladek having burned Anja’s diary (but he keeps photo of
himself)
⁃ Bottom panel: Vladek explains that Anja kept it (I.e. She kept
evidence of him in the Holocaust, but he burned her diary)
 17

⁃ I.e. Individuals like Vladek decide which records of history

are and aren’t preserved (in his case, he keeps a photo of
himself but burns his wife’s diary)
⁃ 1 photo we see within the setting of the comic itself (ASK: what are other
st

photos?) (I.e. Contrast w/ photo of Anja/Art in “Prisoner,” and photo of

Richieu at the beginning of II)
⁃ 1st time we see a character look at a photograph (not contained
within another comic, or dedication at the beginning)
⁃ ASK: How was the photo taken?
⁃ “I passed once a photo place what had a camp uniform- a new and
clean one - to make souvenir photos…” (134)
⁃ Both documentation and not: photo *does* come from
Vladek in the end of the Holocaust, but the uniform comes
from a store (cleaner and better fitting than actual
concentration camp uniforms) (unlike Mandelbaum)
⁃ ASK: what do we notice about the photo?
⁃ Curtain backdrop emphasizes that this is a posed, manipulated
photo (contrasts w/ cartoon animals, but still a product of design)
⁃ A product that Vladek purchases: Holocaust memorabilia that has
been marketed
⁃ In that sense, it’s what Spiegelman makes fun of on p. 42
⁃ There, we (I) laugh at the absurdity of the urge to
profit on the Holocaust (even as that’s exactly what
Art does w/ the book)
⁃ Here, we (and Art) find out that it’s something that
Vladek (a survivor) proudly contributes to
⁃ ASK: why does Vladek do this? Act of defiance: Vladek *willingly* puts
on the uniform he’s been forced to wear as a prisoner
⁃ Back to “Prisoner” in vol. 1: the uniform that Art draws himself
wearing to draw an analogy between himself and Holocaust
victims
⁃ He’s also frozen, here, as the victim in the prison uniform (I.e. Framed as
Holocaust victim)
⁃ Vladek holds onto this evidence, as he doesn’t do with Anja’s diary
⁃ Back to Vla on the bike in vol. 1: he’s reliving his past (not moving
forward) at Art’s behest, but Vladek also chooses to keep this
picture of himself as victim (but also an act of defiance, in that he
willingly chooses this uniform for himself)
⁃ Circumstances of photo (message to Anja): reassuring her that he’s alive
and well (works more as that than a depiction of his reality as a survivor of
the Holocaust)
⁃ It’s, at one time, evidence for Anja of Vladek being alive
 18

⁃ Here, it’s evidence for Art, and us, of the reality of Vladek’s
story
⁃ Also evidence for Vladek himself: reminder of his
experience
⁃ “Bleeding” of history: photo is evidence for Art, Anja, Vladek, and
us, but all in different ways
⁃ Comes right before sequence w/ Gypsy: she sees Anja’s past and tells her
that Vladek is alive (presumably some license taken here)
⁃ Levels of narrative: Art gets this story from Vladek, who must
have gotten it from Anja
⁃ (i.e. Many places where the story could have changed, as we
assume it must have)
⁃ We get Anja’s perspective (I.e. She had to have told this story), but
it’s through Vladek’s voice
⁃ As we saw with the destruction of the diaries, her voice is
lost (only left filtered through Vladek, which is then filtered
through Art) (i.e. Vladek’s heroism at p. 53)
⁃ Important: place where we do get Anja’s voice is also where the
comic dips most clearly into fantasy
⁃ Exaggeration of animal metaphors
⁃ Gypsy moth shows exaggeration/crudeness of
animal metaphor (Gypsy itself is an outdated term)
⁃ One place where I’m sympathetic to the
Harvey perspective: that Spiegelman is
playing into racist notions w/ the animal
metaphor
⁃ Also Swedish reindeer in Stockholm (124-25)
⁃ P. 131: half-Jewish children born to German woman
and Jewish man is shown w/ stripes of cat, but
mouse head (maybe too far)
⁃ Exaggeration reminds us of just how
artificial Spiegelman’s metaphor is
⁃ In these pages, animal metaphor gets pushed farther
than it has been in the rest of the comic (perhaps to
the point of crudeness)
⁃ Fantastical feel to story itself - P. 133: image of Richieu in
overalls (what we see in photo at beginning of beginning of
book, and p. 89, 109, etc. In vol. 1)
⁃ Clear moment of fancy: we can’t expect the fortune
teller to be able to see exactly how Richieu dresses
⁃ After fantasy: Photo of Vla
 19

⁃ P. 134: photo of Vladek gives authority to Gypsy story

(documentary evidence after fanciful anecdote)
⁃ Even the evidence has been staged, filtered through
the way Vladek wants it presented (just like the
comic is presented as Art wants)
• Vladek gets the documentary evidence of the photograph, but Art gets the last word (it’s
his comic)
⁃ Apparent in the final page (136)
⁃ “Spotlight motif” from vol. 1 (I.e. 35, 51, 66—particularly similar to this
reunion, etc.)
⁃ Bottom of p. 35: Vla - “So happy she was”
⁃ Important: Vla’s perspective (link w/ image of his heroic
smuggling of bread to Anja when she’s too weak to carry
the soup)
⁃ P. 136: “Happy” three times in text box
⁃ “Happy ever after”—standard ending of fairy tales
ASK: is this accurate?
⁃ *But* we know that this didn’t turn out to be the case
(think about the ending of vol 1—Vla revealing that he
burns Anja’s diaries after she commits suicide)
⁃ We’re reminded of the limits of Vladek’s
perspective (further distorted through the lens of
Art)
⁃ Resisting finality: conventional ending clearly fails to
describe the situation (as w/ the inadequate metaphors,
reminding us that conventional models of narrative fail to
capture the Holocaust)
⁃ Link back to the photo on 134: there, image of a happy ending for
Vladek (I.e. He has survived the Holocaust/sent a message to his
wife to reunite w/ her)
⁃ *But*, that ending has to be constructed/staged (w/ him as
victim) (like the comic itself)
⁃ Vladek calls Art “Richieu”
⁃ Aside from all of the unhappiness that we’ve heard about in
Vladek and Anja’s marriage, here we have a direct disruption of
the supposed “happy ending”
⁃ Vladek calls his living son by the name of the son who dies long
ago, thus immediately troubling Vladek’s insinuation of a happy
ending in the above panel
⁃ Reminds of the limits of any subjectivity, including both Art’s and
Vladek’s: Vla can call his own son by the wrong name
⁃ Also reminds us that memories of trauma *don’t* go away
 20

⁃ From here, we’re left w/ tombstone: final monument of

Vladek within comic (except it’s not! We have Maus)
⁃ Tombstone juts into panels, just like tower does at
55 (I.e. Chronologies overlapping/bleeding)
⁃ Art’s *drawing* of Vladek’s tombstone (not a
photograph, as we have at p. 134) (I.e. Still Art’s
voice)
⁃ Flame on tombstone: reminds us of Art’s cigarette
smoke (especially at p 100)
⁃ Jewish star: ASK - where else do we see Jewish stars?
⁃ “Prisoner on the Hell Planet”
⁃ On Jewish clothing in the Holocaust
⁃ Return of Jewish star is a symbol of
Judaism, but also reminds us of these images
⁃ Art’s signature underneath (w/ dates!) : ending the comic in the only
appropriate manner (reminding us that this is very much Art’s story, as
much as he may seem to hide it)
 21

• I really enjoyed reading your assignments

⁃ I was really impressed with the level of detail with which you delved into the
comics
⁃ It’s a hard task, especially for those of you without experience reading comics
⁃ For many of you, it’ll be the hardest assignment in the class
⁃ Regardless, I was very happy with your work
⁃ I hope that you approach subsequent assignments with the same focus and
attention to detail (even if you’re less limited)
• I remind you that I’m considering responding to my comments as part of your
participation grade
⁃ I’m not looking for any kind of formal communication, but simply a sign that
you’ve read my comments and taken them into consideration on your subsequent
assignments
⁃ I’m certainly happy to answer any questions that you have about the feedback,
especially due to my bad handwriting
⁃ When I say “read my comments,” I’m referring to both the typed comments at the
end and the in-text comments (I consider both important)
⁃ I try to avoid being redundant in the typed comments: they’re a summary, but
there are lots of things I point to in-text that don’t make it into the typed section
⁃ I expect you to take both into consideration for the next assignments
⁃ For those who haven’t gotten a chance to talk in class as much as you like, this is
a great way to boost your participation grade
⁃ I consider this just as important of a part of your participation: I write
these because I want to help you improve your writing, and I expect you to
take time to read them
• All that being said, there are a few overall things that I wanted to review
⁃ These are issues that I saw on lots of assignments (not just you)
⁃ These are things that I consider “quick fixes”: things I can explain relatively
easily, and can help you avoid on future assignments
⁃ For a lot of these things, you may not have known (especially if you haven’t taken
many English classes), and that’s *fine* (not things I deducted major marks for)
⁃ But they’re things that will help you with your writing overall, both in this class
and any other English classes you might take
• Things to go over:
⁃ Italicize titles (any title of a work we read in this class should be italicized)
⁃ Discuss fiction in present tense (tricky with historical fiction, but stay in the
present as long as you’re referring to the work)
⁃ Avoid 2nd person (I.e. “As you read these pages, you see…”) (very uncommon in
academic prose)
⁃ Some of you asked me about the first person: I’m fine with it!
(“clusterfuck”)
 22

⁃ I use it quite a bit in my own writing, and would encourage you to

do so as well (not everyone agrees, but fine in this class)
⁃ Comma splices: two complete sentences joined w/ a comma (I.e. “This is a class,
I like it”)
⁃ Avoid contractions (I.e. “Don’t” instead of “do not,” etc.) (true for academic
writing, not true for other kinds of writing)
⁃ If I wrote “Please review MLA formatting”: do that
⁃ If there were more than 1-2 issues with your formatting, I just wrote
“Please review”
⁃ Mention OWL: everything you need, including examples of what your
paper should look like, is on there
⁃ Doesn’t bother me that much on its own, but it’ll be a sign that you
haven’t looked at my comments
⁃ Proofread! (Will help you clean writing up)
⁃ A few overall things: I still expect you to take into consideration the specific
comments I made on your paper (email me!)
• Next: review description of assignment #2 (READ)
Reminder: still a *short* paper—important to focus
If you liked the sequence analysis style, you can do that times 2-3 in addition to
secondary sources (i.e. you saw how much we can say about 1 page of Maus)
• Next: how to approach proposals
⁃ ASK: who’s had proposals for other assignments?
⁃ Most of my teachers in undergrad didn’t assign proposals, but I left feeling
like they would have helped me a lot
⁃ Early in undergrad, I’d frequently get essays back with comments
like “you have good moments of close reading, but your central
argument makes no sense”
⁃ I was crushed at the time, but I realized that I could
mitigate the issue if I talked about my papers with my
teachers more before I handed them in
⁃ A few of my teachers made that process formal by
requiring us to write proposals: they gave us feedback on
the proposals before we had to hand in the papers
⁃ I hope to be able to do the same for anyone who takes the proposal seriously
⁃ It’s not a huge percentage of your mark, but it will help you to improve
your final paper (which is a larger percentage of the mark)
⁃ Other things about proposals: teaching tool and conferences
⁃ If any of you teach high school and have them writing papers, I’d
recommend doing this (if you can)
⁃ If you’re interested in going further in academia, this kind of writing is
key (conferences)
 23

⁃ 5 potential tools of any proposal (you don’t have to use all of these, but any
sentence you write in a proposal should probably fall in one of these categories):
⁃ Outlining field
⁃ Explaining what past criticism has been done and how it relates to
your work
⁃ Tool you’re least likely to use for this assignment: I’m not
expecting you to read everything that’s been written on Maus and
find a gap in it (for example)
⁃ *But*, you might read a critic that you really want to respond to
(I.e. My response to Bruno on NT)
⁃ From the criticism that you do read, you might see a gap
that your paper will address
⁃ Justifying research
⁃ Also less important, in the sense of needing your paper to have
appeal beyond the confines of this class (it doesn’t)
⁃ I’m not looking for you to explain, for example, how Fun Home is
a significant contribution to lesbian coming of age stories (beyond
the scope of a 3,000 word paper)
⁃ *But*, in the thesis statement, I will be looking for you to explain
why your observations are significant for your understanding of
the comic you’re writing about (something I commented on in a lot
of papers: a central part of a thesis statement in an English paper)
⁃ The justification might not be in your proposal separate from your
thesis statement, and it might not be significant beyond your
reading of your comic, but that’s enough (I.e. What about your
argument is new or different? What are you saying that someone
else might not pick up on or disagree with relative to the comic?)
⁃ Introducing paper
⁃ Giving the reader some idea of your topic
⁃ More specific than the comic you’re writing about: what
specifically about it does your essay concern?
⁃ Summarizing paper
⁃ i.e. What will your paper say about this topic? What’s going to be
in the body of your essay?
⁃ Key for this: keep in mind that you only have 300 words for
summarizing a 3,000 word paper
⁃ Stick to the main points of your paper (as you see it at the moment)
⁃ Also key: the proposal is in no way a binding contract
⁃ You can, and should, change your ideas for your paper as
you work
 24

⁃ *But*, this gives you a basic roadmap for what your paper
will be about, and gives me a chance to help you to develop
that roadmap
⁃ Main argument
⁃ Thesis statement
⁃ Most important part: ensuring that you have a clear and concise
argument about your subject
⁃ This is also the part that’s most likely to change: as you write about
your comic, and read secondary sources, your argument very likely
will change
⁃ That’s a good thing! If your argument is good (meaning arguable),
you can/should argue with yourself
⁃ A place for me to help you develop that argument
⁃ Not all of these necessarily have to be present in every proposal you make,
but those are your basic tools
⁃ In expressing those five aspects:
⁃ A particularly useful tool is metadiscourse
⁃ Metadiscourse = Discourse about your paper’s discourse
⁃ I.e. “This paper discusses, I argue,” etc.
⁃ Useful for all academic writing, but particularly in proposals,
where you need to be as precise and efficient as possible
⁃ “I argue” tells your reader that it’s the central argument of your paper
⁃ Your argument should also make sense and you should be clear
about how you’re going to support it, but none of those things will
matter if your reader can’t even figure out where your argument is
⁃ “This paper discusses/examines/etc.” makes your area of interest very
clear
⁃ Started every proposal I’ve ever written this way (I’ve had a good track
record of proposals being accepted)
⁃ Other key aspect for clarifying the focus of your paper: title
⁃ Title should reflect argument/objective/focus of paper (reflecting as much
of paper as possible without being *too* broad)
⁃ Undergrad thesis supervisor: “You don’t know if you have a good
argument until you have a good title”
⁃ When you have as little space as you do in a proposal, every word
becomes even more important for conveying information about your paper
to the reader (I.e. Titles are very important for telling your reader
something about your paper)
⁃ This is why I commented on many of your titles: in proposals and longer
essays, titles are a great place for providing information about the paper
⁃ A way to do titles: Colon, and phrases before and after
⁃ Tony: “play title” and “work title”
 25

⁃ Play title: comes before the colon

⁃ Usually broader, and not necessarily specific to the
text you’re writing about
⁃ *But* it should be specific to your argument, even
if that might not be apparent to the reader right
away
⁃ If you want: humour me (this is the place for puns,
plays on words, etc) (I.e. Play)
⁃ Work title: comes after the colon
⁃ Usually where you state the author and title of the
work you’re discussing
⁃ Also state the *specific* subject of your paper
⁃ Perfect example: title of Chute chapter on Fun Home (show)
⁃ Play title before colon: broader, doesn’t let us know yet what text
she’s writing about
⁃ Work title after colon: clear statement of text and what about it is
discussed in the essay
⁃ Show my proposal (accepted!) (no later than 7:45)
⁃ Mostly summarizing/introducing my paper/argument (not much 1-2)
⁃ IMPORTANT: you *don’t* need to summarize your comic this much (I
will have read it)
⁃ Also: really only in the 3rd sentence to end of first paragraph that I
summarize my primary text (the film)
⁃ I condensed my summary significantly to leave room for my
analysis
⁃ Implicit references to criticism in beginning of second paragraph, but
mostly more focused on my reading (as your essays will likely be)
⁃ ASK: what are my work and play titles?
⁃ Ask: where’s the metadiscourse here?