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.