Persepolis vs. White

What is the significance of the point of view in which Maus is told vs. the point of view in which Persepolis is told?
The point of view in which Maus is told is through the son of the person actually experiencing the story. I do not believe this takes away any credibility from the story at all, I just feel while reading the story that it loses some of the "Wow" factor, if you will. Hearing the story, with the interruptions of the present day is an amazing way to tell a story, to remind the readers that this is a story being told from the son, hearing it from his father, but I feel as if there is something missing in the story when it passes through that middle person. The way Persepolis is told, directly from the pen of Satrapi fulfills the readers thirst for that feeling that they are actually in the story.
In the words of Hayden White, "So natural is the impules to narrate." In saying this, White brings to my attention how true this timeless statement is. Everyone loves to talk about themselves, or tell stories about things that happen to themselves, or loved ones. Both of these stories share that one strong common bond: The love the narrator has for the story they are telling. Satrapi loves telling her story because it is about her, and let's face it, who doesn't love talking about themselves. While in Maus, even though the narrator has a semi-strained relationship with his father, the reader can still detect the love he has for his father, and his story. He wants to get everything correct and do the story justice.
Both of these comics have extremely important stories to tell, despite the author. They both illustrate to the readers stories from events that are very rarely told anymore, because few survived, or just because the people involved do not enjoy talking about the hard times in their lives. Neither of these stories end or begin with an extremely happy ending, but both stories need to be told, because these events are extremely important in the history of not just people living in the Americas, but the entire world.

V vs. Tyler Durden

In Chapter 13 of V for Vendetta many of the actions and dialouge that take place between V and Evey are nearly identical to those actions that take place between Tyler Durden and The Narrator in the novel Fight Club. Which lead me to think "What do these similarities say about both of these characters?" V is all about justice and people being free to do what they choose to do, rather than do what the government wants the person to do. Tyler Durden is extremely similar to that in the sense that he is constantly pushing people to "hit rock bottom" to do what they want to do rather that just fill the norms of society.

There are some striking similarities in the actions of these two main characters. V tells Evey "Happiness is a prison, Evey. Happiness is the most insidious proson of all. Your lover lived in the penitentiary that we are all born into, and was forced to rake the dregs of that world for his living." While at the same time Tyler tells the members of the fight club "The ability to let that which does not matter truly slide. You are not your job. You are not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You are not your fucking khakis. You are the all singing all dancing crap of the world." Both men, though expressed a tad differently have the same general idea of having personal freedoms rather than freedom as a country. Both also seem to have an extensive knowledge of how to turn household items into explosive devices and love to use those said devices to blow up the likes of govermnet buildings or buildings of credit card companies.

There are also some similarities in the colors of the comic and the colors of the movie, Fight Club. In V, the colors used are always very dull and the pictures have very murky tones. The same is true with the movie version of Fight Club. The majority of the scenes are shot in darker places, and most of what you can see is just the main characters. In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud talks about how color takes a central role in comics. Which could be the reasoning for using such murky colors in V as well as Fight Club. The authors, directors, and illustrators would rather have the audience viewing the subject matter of the comic, novel, or movie rather than paying attention to the striking colors, and moving the subject matter into more of a secondary role.

The ideas of these two provocative characters are similar, but what are some differences? There is one main difference I noticed. V would rather use his words to convince his followers to believe what he believes. He uses his eloquence to draw Evey in to see his point of view. While, Tyler would rather use, lets say, extreme measures. These measures can start of simply, such as starting a fight with a random person and then lose the fight. But Durden never does anything simply. His final measure to get his followers to "hit rock bottom" was to burn their hand with a chemical. They are not allowed to use the vinegar to dillute the burn until he truly believes the person has reached "rock bottom." After their hands have been burned, each follower then sees the world in a more "Tyler-like" way.

Overall, both of these characters are two of the most interesting characteres I have ever read about. Both have amazing ideals for themselves and the people around them, and are willing to do nearly anything to have those ideals come to light, even if it means death. These extreme meansures taken by both V and Tyler Durden lead me, and hopefully many other readers to respect both of these characters, and deem them two of the most eccentric characters in literature.

Maus & White

When I initially started reading Maus, my first thought was, "why is this author using animals in his story rather than people?" My mind ran through all of the obvious cat and mouse stereotypes, but I knew there had to be something deeper.

"Historians do not have to report their truths about the real world in narrative form." This sentence taken directly out of White's article struck me as one that fit Spiegelman's tale perfectly. While he is writing about the Holocaust in narrative form, it is completely different from the majority of other Holocaust stories that are written as novels. It stays true to the narrative form, but it broadens the readers mind as to what can be considered a narrative form.

After considering the way Spiegelman chose to portray his story, the question again arises, "Why cats, mice, and pigs?" The idea that struck me as most relevant was that it defamiliarizes the familiar. I noticed right away that I was paying more attention to what these "mice" are saying than I would if it was just a man speaking about his story. As sad as that is, our country and culture as a whole are completely desensitized to Holocaust stories. We have grown up listening to stories, but very few strike a chord like Maus does. I truly believe that the usage of animals in the story rather than humans makes the readers step back, and pay more attention to what the characters are saying, because it feels almost like they are telling a new, or different story.