Maus 2 Art Spiegelman

In Maus I and Maus II, Art Spiegelman describes two interwoven “survivor” stories: how Vladek “survived” the Holocaust and how Art “survived” Vladek. At the beginning of Maus II, Chapter 2, readers learn that Art literally survived Vladek who “died of congestive heart failure on August 18, 1982” (II.41.1). Vladek’s passing leaves Art with no first-hand account of Vladek’s Holocaust “survivor” story. Thus, especially evident on page 69 of Maus II, Vladek’s death complicates the story by amplifying Art’s convoluted emotions regarding his father and forcing Art to imagine more of the story. Art Spiegelman showcases his struggle to talk about the Holocaust, which encompasses a variety of competing narratives: Vladek’s Holocaust story and Art’s

strained relationship with Vladek.
Art’s dialogue emphasizes how the Holocaust affected his relationship with Vladek. In the first and third panel of page 69, Art’s dialogue were unrelated inquiries about Vladek’s time at Auschwitz as a tinman, contrasting Vladek’s normal conversation with Francoise. Previously revealed on page 12 of Maus I, readers could infer that Art’s main purpose to visit Vladek after “a long time,” noting how they “weren’t that close,” (I. 11. I) was to “draw” (I.12. I) Maus I. As a consequence, Maus I and II becomes Art’s primary connection with Vladek. Moreover, discussing the Holocaust becomes the only way Art could communicate with Vladek because Vladek seems to be stuck in the past. For instance, Vladek utilizes his status as a Holocaust survivor, specifically “how it was in the camps,” (II.90.8) in order to successfully exchange his groceries. Altogether, the Holocaust creates a unique father-son relationship between Vladek and Art. Art’s initial interest in publishing a book about Vladek’s traumatic experience in the Holocaust strengthens their relationship. Yet the same traumatic experience chiefly causes the enormous rift in perception between Vladek and Art, proven by how Art “can’t BEGIN to imagine what it felt” (II.46.I) to be in Auschwitz. Therefore, Vladek and Art will never be able truly understand and relate to each other.
The stark shift between the two halves of page 69 proves how Art struggles to adequately present both narratives, especially Vladek’s Holocaust story. The first four panels focus on how Vladek and Art’s relationship was built upon the Holocaust while the last five panels focus on Vladek’s Holocaust story. The change in timeframe and conversation type highlights the sudden shift from the “relationship” narrative to the “Holocaust story” narrative. Between the first four panels, little time seems to pass by; Art sits down and eats his sandwiches while Vladek and Francoise prepares tea. Whereas between the fifth and sixth panels, a significant amount of time seems to pass by; Art drinks the tea in the fifth frame and smokes a cigarette in the sixth frame. Meanwhile, the conversational dialogue between Vladek, Francoise and Art present in the first half suddenly changes to Vladek’s monologue of his Holocaust story.
The shorter timeframe and conversational dialogue in the first four frames indicates more details in a short period of time, hinting at a more reliable source.

The first half of page 69 revolves around Art’s strained relationship with Vladek, a narrative that mainly comes from Art. Art, who is still alive, is able to depend on his perspective to accurately portray the narrative. However, in the second half of page 69, the timeframe becomes choppy with rifts and Vladek’s long monologue takes over. This is when Vladek’s Holocaust story, which essentially comes from Vladek, becomes Art’s main narrative. As mentioned in the second paragraph, Art and Vladek’s difference in perspective causes an inability to truly understand each other. Therefore, Art’s perspective instinctively distorts Vladek’s story in Maus I and II, shown through the difference between the drawings and the cherry-picked words within the speech bubbles. In addition to this, as previously stated in the first paragraph, Vladek passed away during the creation of Maus II. Vladek’s passing leaves Art with no first-hand account of Vladek’s Holocaust “survivor” story, forcing Art to rely on less dependable third-hand accounts such as Art’s several-years-old memories of his father’s memories and the “tape” (II.47.I) recordings without reaffirmation from Vladek. For instance, Vladek confesses how he “was an EYEWITNESS” (II.69. IX) to the gas chambers yet proceeds to inform Art how he “HEARD” (II.69.XIII) about what

happened in the gas chambers through his fellow worker. To sum up, with Vladek’s unreliability, Art’s inability to understand Vladek and with no first-hand accounts, Art enlarges the distortion of Vladek’s Holocaust story. Therefore, revealing how Art’s different levels of insight alter the way he portrays each narrative in Maus I and II.
Vladek’s death intensifies Art’s emotions towards Vladek and his “Holocaust” story.

Art, who had a distant relationship with Vladek, becomes slowly closer to his father to complete Maus I and II. After Vladek’s passing, emotions of guilt and duty consumes Art because he couldn’t fully understand his father yet he had the overbearing responsibility to portray Vladek’s Holocaust story. Therefore, in the second half of page 69, to make up for his lack of perception, Art purposely chose scenes that focused only on Vladek’s Holocaust story and cutting out unnecessary dialogue, such as the ones on the “tape” recorder, (II.47.I-IV) that plausibly transpired between the fifth and sixth frame. Thus, Art creates a concentrated version of Vladek’s Holocaust story, with no interruption from the “relationship” narrative. Still, in the fourth frame, Vladek releases a “SIGH” and complains about “an unnecessary suffering” (II.69.IV) in his life. The placement of Vladek’s speech bubble leaves readers to question whether Vladek’s complaint was a response to Mala’s incompetency explained in the previous frame or to Art’s seemingly inconsiderate question in the same frame. Despite of Art’s guilt and duty towards his father, Art validates his frustrations towards Vladek, due to the lack of understanding with Vladek, and does not abandon the “relationship” narrative by leaving it as an open answer. Therefore, Art’s emotions influence the prioritization of his

narratives.
In the end, Art continuously strive to balance the “relationship” and the “Holocaust story” narrative. The Holocaust creates Art’s admiration for Vladek as a Holocaust survivor yet creates Art’s irritation of Vladek due to their incapability to relate to one another. The Holocaust creates countless obstacles that separate Art and Vladek: a generation gap and a traumatic experience which generates different lenses of perception along with the father-son relationship that shapes the complex emotions Art feels, warping both the narratives from its true form. However, is there only one version of a true narrative or does the warping of the narratives through one’s perception and emotions becomes a true narrative because it validates the emotions and thoughts of a person?