Maus as a whole...

So I have been sick for a while, but i think I might have actually gotten caught up... maybe.

Maus has an amazing way of getting the story across. I love the way it's word for word the way the father says it, and all of the emotion that goes into the story line. the mad relationship that Vladek has with his wife Mala, is abusive and you can tell that the only reason they got married was for the companionship. the horrible things that happened to him when he was a young man were awful and made him the man that is is now, the narrator of the tragedy. Artie is in the middle of a marital conflict, that has obviously going on for a long time, and wants no part of, though both of them drag him into it, no matter what he does. The terrible things that happen to Vladek and Mala make them bitter and really difficult to be around, for good reason. I think the way it ended was very blunt, but gave no room for embellishment, which meant no falsification of the real story.

MAUS II

When I was reading Maus II, I didn't particularly like how it started because I just finished reading Maus I. I wanted to jump into the story of Auschwitz, and it was taking awhile. I can be impatient. As expected, I see that Vladek lives through Auschwitz better than the other Jewish prisoners. Being taken into a concentration camp, it's probably not right to say they were even prisoners in the eyes of the Nazis. It seemed interesting at the end of chapter 2 when Vladek attempts to sleep that he cries out the same way as one of the other Jews that was expecting death. It seems that Vladek, no matter how lucky, was expecting death in the concentration camp. You can see that if it was not for Vladek's luck, he would be dead earlier. We can see soon after Vladek's cry before sleeping that Art gases the insects that bother him. I feel as though there is some kind of reference that in the eyes of the Nazis, the Jews were just annoying little pests that had to be taken care of in order to have peace in Germany. Vladek finishes his story with an ironic twist saying that Anja and he lived "happy happy ever after." I thought it was also interesting in the end of the book how instead of saying Art, Vladek says "Richieu." It seems that through the "happy happy ever after," a kind of fairy tale raconteuring, Vladek wishes that the son he grew to live with was Richieu.

Maus II part 1

After reading the first part of Maus II the idea of how Artie really feels inadequate to his father really comes into play towards the begginning of the story. He describes how he never looked up to his father and rather saw him more as a burden, that caused him to feel like he would never be quite good enough. I have trouble putting myself in Artie's shoes on this one because all the people I have been around my entire life have been so supportive in leeting me do whatever I want and feel would be good. I think it would so hard going through your life always having to compare your accomplishments with the accomplishments of your father. When in reality you can never really live up to such a task as surviving the holocaust. Because of this the best advice I think Artie could recieve from anyone is to do the best he can with the time he is given.
Another thing that was interesting about this selection from the book, was how you really get a taste of how awful it really was. When they discuss toward the end of the reading how the Jews were killed it is almost too much for one to process. How they could ever do such cruel things to humans is beyond me. The part that stands clearly in my mind is how they would burn them alive in their graves and then use the fat from the recently killed jews to fuel the fire for the next bunch.
One criticism about this selection would be that I felt like I was always waiting for them to get back to the story of auschwitz and stop talking about what was going on in the here and now. Whether this means that I was just really interested in the actual history part of the book, or if the information about artie and his father's relationship is just fluff I am not sure. Although I can say that it does give the story some credibility to be coming from a real life source, with which you can somewhat relate to.

First Responce to "Maus"

I find it very intreeging. I love how at the end of the first chapter his father tells him not to put in the part about the first girl, and Art Spiegelman "promises" that he won't, but what did we just read? Oh yeah, that part! I thought it was funny. I also like how the different races are represented by different animals, although I don't really understand why the Polish are pigs. I understand that the Nazis are cats and the Jews are mice, because the cats go after the mice. That was an easy metaphore to understand. I like how I breese through this reading, too. I am usually a slow reader, but I was able to read to page 75 in just an hour. This is amazing for me. I am usually lucky if I am able to read a page a min.

First Responce to "Maus"

I find it very intreeging. I love how at the end of the first chapter his father tells him not to put in the part about the first girl, and Art Spiegelman "promises" that he won't, but what did we just read? Oh yeah, that part! I thought it was funny. I also like how the different races are represented by different animals, although I don't really understand why the Polish are pigs. I understand that the Nazis are cats and the Jews are mice, because the cats go after the mice. That was an easy metaphore to understand. I like how I breese through this reading, too. I am usually a slow reader, but I was able to read to page 75 in just an hour. This is amazing for me. I am usually lucky if I am able to read a page a min.

theme

hmm i never thought food could be a theme but as we talked on how vladeks father did not want him to eat and how vladek wanted artie to each everything, whenever the war started and the men have to go out and find a way to get money, vladek's fatehr in law tells him how the family wants to keep on living like before, with the big banquest meals and all that. Food, then is rationed into coupons and becomes like a monetary system. Or when vladek and the others are sent to move mountains, how they were fed really good the first day so they could regaint heir strenghts, or before that how the polish prisoners of wall would get three good meals a day and teh jewish only once a day and very poor. IT is almost like, food is important because is sustains your body, because it nurtures your body but also because it becomes a monetary system to where it can save your life if you sell it or trade if for something else. (or save someone esle, like his nieces)

Maus Book I

Art Spiegelman does a fantastic job of taking an issue that is so real and intense, and is able to make it so accesible to readers. The Holocaust was such a tragic event in the worlds history and a lot of people are only aware that many people died, but there is so much more to the issue. There is the mental effects, economical damage, the social distinctions, and the abuse that haunts the victims to this day.

The 1st half of the reading of Maus gave you background information to issues you would soon read into the 2nd portion of our reading. Page 5-6 are an example of a flashback that you may not of directly understood at 1st, but as you continue in the book, you begin to understand what Vladek is saying to Artie when he says," If you lock them together in a room with no food for a week..THEN you should see what it is, friends!" my initial thought was wow, what a unsensitive father talking to a small child like that, but I learned to realize that the mental damage done to Vladek wont allow him to see things in such a simple picture, the Holocaust has cause him to not be able to sympathize with his son on any level less than the struggle he had to put up with.

The art helped visually connect what was happening in the story and made it more aesthically pleasing to the mind. It helped create the situations. When Artie comes home, I soon realize that the Vladek is a very picky and stubborn man because he yells at Mala for not putting his sons jacket on the wooden hanger. The fathers intentions may be good, but the way he expresses is reflects poorly on his character. Artie has come to ask his dad about his experience about his life in Poland and the war. Of course you can assume that it is about the Holocaust by the book cover, but if there was not a cover, by paying attention to detail you would see on pg. 12 that his father has number labeled on his arm that let you know he was a Jew and that he was then, a Holocaust victim.

The 1st half was very crucial to the rest of the novel because so much information pertaining to things we read at the end of the 1st half and all of the 2nd half were at least mentioned in the beginning. Artie is trying to make this story real, so the little deatils have an affective impact on how "real" Vladeks story becomes. On page 32, the unofficial point in the novel where nazi rule begins to take place. The nazi flag is in the air, but not depicted as a "complete" nazi flag which could signify that german occupancy is not in full effect yet, maybe a sense of foreshadowing?

Vladeks relationship with his son is very different from the relationship Vladek had with his father. Of course to me, that makes sense because things change during different periods of time, but I notice that to Vladek, its more personal than that. Vladek tried to compensate for everything his dad did not do in some sense such as Artie had to eat everything on the plate etc... When Speigelman begins with Vladek entering the Holocaust, it becomes so intense and real. The issues did happen and its frustrating to know that nothing was being done to change this.

The 2nd portion of our reading was very detailed and specific about certain issues. It is affective that speigelman would do this because again, it makes this more personal and easier for the reader to relate to. For the 1st portion of the Holocaust, Vladeks family had it pretty nice compared to others because they had money, but we soon learned that money could not sustain them forever. A point in the novel that bothered me was on pg. 83, when Vladek discuessed how Nahum Cohn and his son along with 2 others were hanged. You could tell this bothered him because it was the cover picture to chapter 4, and it affected him so much that he could not leave the house for days.

Swtiching from the story to Artie and Vladek, you can see patterns of things that still carry on in Vladek from the war. He is very independent and stingy wtih money. He eventually reads a comic made by Artie that really deters his mood. Anja was very important to Vladek and any memory of her haunts him.

It is amazing to see how Anja and Vladek make it SO CLOSE to being free, when they are eventually hoaxed into a trap. The pictures have made reading this novel very easy while obsorbing so much knowledge. The novel is very easy to read, and honestly doesnt require much reading, but attention to detail. So much is unsaid in the comic than said. Spiegelman does a fantastic job at bringing this into reality for the reader.

Maus Part II

While reading Maus part II I felt myself wanting to keep reading on and on just to see if they would get caught. It gave me the sort of feeling that I get from the action novels I prefer to read soo much. Another interesting thing about part II that was rather interesting to me was the fact that Artie's mother, and Vladek's wife Anja committed suicide. This puts the story I feel in sort of a different context. It also maybe leaves a hint to why Vladek can be such a nasty person towards his new wife. If you ever went through something as terrible as the holocaust with someone, I'm sure you would feel a very tight bond with them, and then to lose them in one swift instant, of their own accord for that matter, would be traumatizing. Along with this the excerpt from the comic book that Artie wrote about his mother's tragic death was also quite interesting, it gave an insight to his deep dark soul at the time. I understand why his father would of cried after reading it, it was so very personal. Finally one of the things that I have said from the beginning that I like about this book is how quick of a read it is. You get to hear a great story without having to slave over a novel for hours. One of the reasons why I think this is able to happen is because of the fact that so many of the details are included in the illustrations, which limits the descriptive vocabulary.

Maus

I personally really liked Maus a lot it was a very interesting read and it gave me a different view on the Holocaust. I had never a seen something so horrible portrayed in a comic book,s ice normally comic books and fun and just fiction's action. I have been used to hearing about the Holocaust in history class in a very down and hard way. It has never been portrayed with cartoons or funny figures. I liked a lot the way it was shown to us from the beginning with his father and how things that affected him before in the past reflected on the way he took care of his kids. I loved the hidden clues he gave us throughout the story and cannot wait to keep on reading and see what happens.

Maus Part II

After finishing the first book, I almost felt like I had just been captured as well, waiting to be dropped off at Auschwitz, waiting for my impending death. I've read many books and magazines, but Maus elicited a response I had never felt in a book; the feeling that I was actually there. I believe a major reason for that feeling was the pictures that accompanied the words. The pictures, many in great detail, sometimes even distracted me because I would often look at the pictures ans sometimes skip the words completely. They added a complete new dimension to reading, giving you a vivid image while you read. I was never someone who could gather this image while reading a normal book, so the pictures were a great addition for me.


Regarding the book, I liked the second half of the book much more than the initial half. The first half moved pretty slow, just talking about relationships and setting up the story. The second half went into great detail of Vladek and Anja's run from Nazi persecution. Once again, luck was on their side for many years, having great people to help hide their families and avoid detection often in broad daylight. I really liked the fact that while later in hiding, when Vladek was pretending to be Polish, he had on a Pig mask. Little details like that really added to the story. All in all, I really liked the first book.

Maus Book I Part II

The second half of the first book of Maus really did a great job of tying up the loose ends of the first half, while providing enough intrigue for the reader to want to continue reading the next book. In the concluding half, starting with Chapter Five, Artie comes back to Vladik's house to continue the story on Vladik's experience, only to find an angered and slightly depressed Vladik. When he asks Mala what has happened to him, Mala tells him that Vladik has read one of Artie's earlier comics about his mother, who apparently committed suicide. There is then an excerpt that shows the comic itself. Vladik comes into the house and states that while is was hard to read, the comic was true and just brought back bad memories of the time, and the slight confrontation was over. The flashbacks then return to continue where they had left off last time. One by one, Vladik's family member were being taken away to concentration camps until it was only them left. They spent a few months in hiding until Vladik took a chance to escape to Hungary, only to realize that it was a trap and they were taken to Auschwitz.

The second half of the book really starts to add more development to the characters of the present, more so I believe than the characters introduced in the past. Vladik has now shown that he does have a more sensitive and vulnerable side to him, and that the past hurts him more than he would usually let on. Artie has also now been shown as not so much of a narrator anymore, but as a character himself in the story. He has finally taken some sort of stand towards his father, and even some sort of resentment in regards to learning that his father has burned all of his mother's diaries and writings during a fit of depression. Mala as well has been a bit more fleshed out, although not necessarily positively or negatively. In some ways, she could even be considered a plot device, with how her friend's son was the one to find the comic and that is how Vladik was able to find out about it. The art in the novel is really starting to stand out on its own as another storytelling element. McCloud's amplification through simplification really shines through with Spiegelman. At any given time, if Spiegelman wants to express an emotion in his characters, it is very easily recognizable and gives the reader an even greater grasp of the feelings the characters are feeling. The "pig masks" are also a nice touch to portray the Jews as just a standard Pole. Another clever element I thought also was how lines are used through the character to express surprise.

2nd Half of Maus

In the second half of Maus, I find that much of the graphic art supported the effect that the Holocaust had on Vladek rather than Vladek's story. You can see that when Vladek is not telling a story that they are talking about money. One example is when you see Vladek picking up a telephone wire from the trash to make use of it later. You can see occasionally that there is an emotional feel in the book to set the tone of the Vladek's. An example of this would be when Spiegelman writes about his mother and how much grief they have experienced from her death. You can see that Spiegelman uses some pages of the book to place his other comic Prisoners on the Hell Planet: A Case History just to create that emotional appeal of the Holocaust. Much of the graphic artwork in that particular section displays the tragedy. This, however, has nothing to do with Vladek's story, but it does have to do with the extent to which Vladek's family has suffered in an ongoing tragedy.

Playing Cat and MAUS

Art Spiegelman has taken a very interestingly symbolic approach to Holocaust storytelling that really captures, in my opinion, the more subtle aspects of Jewish life in this period. The most prevelant is obviously the personification of different domestic animals, particularly the cat (Germans) and the mouse (Jews), and at times the pig (Poles). This illuminated for me a very sad truth about Nazi persecution of the Jews, that is its similarity to a game of "cat and mouse," in that the German and Polish population under the manipulation of Aryan superiority concepts preyed on the small Jewish population as if they were sworn enemies. An advantage of great power and quantity was on the side of the Nazis, much like when a mouse is trapped in a corner, it has no chance against the hungry feline and its ferocious claws..

The story of Art's mother and father is a hopeless tale of suffering, accomplanied by many hardships and devestation, much like any other persecuted group at the time. But Spiegleman's interpretation is very unique in that it depends on symbolic imagery and the structure of the very entertaining framework of a son interviewing his elderly father on the subject of his Holocaust experience to create a certain ambience in which one can understand the Holocaust in a new light. The images related aspects of everyday life (familial interaction, pure actions of children, body language and facial expression) that would normally be drowned out by the more imposing narrative of suffering. In short, i commend Spiegleman on his masterful use of symolism and look forward to the rest of his work.

2nd part of Maus

The second part of the book was much more interesting for me to read because so much more was going on. Things have gotten worse for the Jews, and Vladek uses his wits and social standing to keep his family hidden. At first, he is very successful. He keeps them hidden under the coal in the basement at first, then they move to the attic with an entrance behind the chandelier. However, at one point, a Jewish man sees his family in their hiding place hidden by the chandelier. He tells them he needs food for his family, and they trust him and give him some. Later, the same man turns Vladek into the Nazis and they are taken. Also, in this part of the book, Vladek becomes depressed after reading a comic Art had written in response to Anja's suicide.
I felt that the art in this part of the book really helped the story. For one, it is easy to identify people by their animal. I also feel that Art did a good job picking his animals. The characteristics of each animal match the characteristics of each group, such as the clever pigs for the Poles. I also think that Art did a good job with portraying the feelings of the characters with subtle details in their expressions and body language. Just a small line below the eye portrays all the weariness and fear that a certain person may be feeling. However, I do think that sometimes the background images become a little much. They sometimes overpower the simplistic images of the characters.

Second Half of maus 1

The tension really rises as you continue to read into the second half of the first book. Tragedy that we have been expecting happens. You also get to see how Artie is stuck in the middle of Vladek and Malla's disputes as well as the relationship Artie and his father have.
I found that the Novel just beacme more and more interesting as the story unfolded. Even though we all pretty much know what is going to happen we still read with a sense of question and worry. You can always tell when a movie or a novel is good when you get a strong feeling for the characters and then they seem so real like its happeneing in your life. Maus so far has done this to me as i try and relate to the characters.
I think that the illustrations do not ake away form the story in the least. They just help to understand especially sense some of the dialogue form the Jews isnt the best gramatically. Because of the simplicity of the characters and the rest fo the drawings i am able to see more as we learned earlier on before we started reading. I also like how it is in black and white with no color. I think color would have taken away form the message and the story. Color would have put a sense of joy in the book and so far i havent seen any.
I still find the idea of animals as the characters so different yet very intelligent. Its kind of a sly way of portraying the different races. Its funny how the jews where pig masks to disguise themselves as pols. The choice for each race continues to be so relative and real.

Maus 2nd half

I liked the comic within the the book, I felt that it gave some more insight into the personality of the Artie and Vladek. At the same time it was somewhat distracting, from the main story line; you had top stop and kinda think where you were in Vladek's story. I will say that it was interesting to see the two different styles of drawing thatn Spiegelman used, it shows an overall theme to the work: the comic was more depressing, distressed, and into the mind workings, wheres as the book is informational, sad but hopeful, and personal, but not as deep into the mind as the comic. I like how Valdek was willing to help other when he could, even when he risked getting caught. Also, I think it is interesting how Vladek doesn't seem to dwell on what could have been, like when his cousin made it out of the war fine at Mrs. Motonowa and he got tricked and ended up in Auschwitz.The fight at the end of book one between Vladek and Artie in regaurds to Anna's notebooks is interesting to me, because Artie is overcome with anger after finding out that Vladek burned them and Anna was hoping that one day Artie would find them interesting...He completely lost it and yelled at Vladek. Immediatly, Vladek was confused/sadden that Artie would yell at him that way; I felt that Artie did the quick I'm sorry, but really not sorry thing to make himself feel better. I think that there is something to the fact that the last line of book one is "...Murderer", It just seems like it was a purposeful way to end book one.

Maus

I thought the second half of the first book was far more interesting. It really began to get into the details of their actual experience through the holocaust. Vladek tries to use his financial situation to get the family out of trouble and is very successful for quiet some time. He as a character grows more and he takes on a leadership role, not only in the family but in the Jewish population. After a series of events it ends up just to Vladek and Anja hidding. They have lost their son and rest of the family. I think this section of the novel allows for the different themes to grow such as the theme of social status. The family is able to get out of a lot because of who they are and the amount of money they have. My favorite part was when Vladek finds the cartoon Arty had drawn after his mother had committed suicide. For me, it brought the characters more to life to see their pain, not just remembering their pain and it was a good break form the originial plot line. I think the illustrations in the second half are not quiet detailed and leave the reader up to interpret them. The faces have slight changes in emotions but nothing compared to the graphics in Arty's other cartoon. I think those images show so much more detail than any others. I think he did that because Arty experienced those emotions first hand and knows exactly how the characters were feeling, while he can only guess about how they would have looked and felt during their experience in the Holocaust.

Maus -2nd half

As time progresses the Jews experience more and more persecution. Thankfully Vladek and Anja are able to remain with their family. Since Father-in-law is wealthy, they use the money in order to bribe the corrupt Germans. Then comes a notice that all elderly Jews over the age of 70 must be transfered. Secretly the Grandparents are put into a hiding place to spare them from being under the control of the Nazis. However, eventually the Jewish police take them away, after which they are taken to Auschwitz. After Vladek is finished riding his bike, Arte goes upstair to look for his mothers jornals. He then talks with Mala about what she experienced during the Holocaust. Then Arte leaves the house. The next time he returns to the house he finds out that his father read a comic strip that he wrote about his mothers suicide. I found the images in this brief comic to be rather disturbing. Arte portrays his father in what seemed to me like a evil devilish way. As time went on Vladek and Anja along with her parents were forced to find hiding places. The places where the Jews hid seem so sneaky, for example above the chandelier and under the coal bin. While they were in hiding the were rated out by a fellow Jew that was trying to save himself. Next Vladek and Anja are separated from her parents, however, they manage to survive. Further on in the story, after many hiding places and many close calls, Anja and Vladek are caught on a train by the Nazis, because they were rated out by two Polish men that were supposed to be helping them. I personally think that the art in this book is very helpful to the reader for multiple reasons. It helps the reader to visualize the events that are taking place and it gives one a better idea of what the author is meaning, rather leaving room for speculation. One thing I found to be helpful was Spiegelmans use of the characters eyes. So much of their feelings are expressed through the shape of their eyes and angle of their eye brows.

MAUS

I really really really liked reading maus. I thought it was such an interesting read. i didn't know how short it truly is until i started reading. every now and again i would look down and then 5 minutes later i was like 20 pages away. and i liked the fact that maus is told as if the person was truly right there in front of us. there are little breaks and little bits of humor. i also had a lot of question that will hopefully be answered by the end of the 2nd book. i honestly wanted to keep going instead of stopping but i knew that if i would have i wouldn't be able to stop and i'd go into discussion with a lot more information then others and could end up ruining the plot. all in all it was such a good graphic novel. it didn't have to have super awesome drawings cause it did such a good job of conveying the scene. i seriously recommend it to anyone. my room mate said i would really enjoy maus and he was right.

MAUS

The way Maus is written... The way it goes back and fourth from the interaction between father and son to the father's life during the war... is interesting, I like it because it's mainly present during the beginning and end of the chapter; however, if it were to interrupt the flow of the book I would not enjoy it, but it hasn't done that thus far and I'm enjoying it. I like his (Artie's) humor throughout the book. I enjoy the interaction between Artie and Vladek... the generation gap and difference in ideas and attitudes. The cartooning in the story is pretty cool... I like the Mouse/Cat/Pig thing going on.

Maus Reading

First and foremost, I am not a person who likes to read, but I enjoyed reading Maus as I kept on flipping page after page to see what came next. I did not understand the full extent to which Art Spiegelman depicted the Jews as mice and the Nazis as cats, and maybe not two different types of animals where the Nazis were the predators. I finally realized that it was through the acts of hiding in shelters by the Jews that make the perfect analogy for being depicted as mice. The Nazis would always try to draw the Jews out into traps by telling the Jews that the elderly will be taken into "special" housing because the Nazis cared for them. I could see now that Nazis depicted as cats is the perfect idea. I also liked the structure in which Spiegelman tells the story. There is an oscillation between comic relief and the tension in Vladek's story. I felt as if this tension and release structure created a desire for me to read the whole story. I have not started Maus II, but I am sure it will be just as great.

Maus 1-75

Before I started reading Maus, I had expected it simply to take place in the time of the Holocaust. I thought it would be Art describing the events that happened to his father in the past. I was surprised at how much took place much later, with the conversations between him and his father. I think it made it feel a little more real and closer to home. Most of the words in the book are the actual words of his father as he tells the story, making me think that it may be a little more accurate than just Art telling the story as it happened in the past. It also made the character a little more realistic. Their arguments and individual little quirks really showed how real and human the characters are. Also, It didn't take me too long to start hearing the voices of the characters. I didn't even really notice I heard them until later.

Maus 1st 75pages

I like the seeing the story from the illustrations, there is a lot more depth and meaning to the words with them. I like that the story seems very real, Spiegelman did a wonderful job of telling the story as it was told to him, even incorprateing the dialogue between him and his father. I like that this isn't another straight to the terror telling of the Holocuast...we are able to see the gradual changes as the occured.

MAUS Part I

I was very intrigued by the initial part of MAUS. The idea of using animals for a serious subject was a very interesting one, but one that I believe paid off. Probably one of the best parts regarding the book was the relationship between Vladek and Art. The bickering between the two really heightens the generation gap between the two family members, as well as the strained relationship between Mala and Vladek. I really enjoyed the illustrations of the first half, especially the one when the mice were hanged. Not saying I liked it, but the vivid detail of the pictures really put you in that courtyard. Really interesting first half.

MAUS

i really started to like the story. Its an easy read which makes it nice but at the same time the story is interesting. There isnt to much information to drag it out but enough to keep you interested. I tryed paying close attention to details in the pictures however i dont see anything that seemed incrediably important. The pictures in fact seemed very basic to me. It wasnt untill we disscussed them in class that i realized how significant the art was in this story. I did notice the language that Vladeck used. He phrases things differently which i thought made the story better. It makes it more realsitic because that is how someone raised in that time would talk.

First Response to MAUS

My initial response after reading the first half of maus, was wow what an easy read this was, I litterally finished the first 75 pages in less than a half an hour. Also in regards to the content of the novel, I like how it leads up to the holocaust and doesn't just jump right in. This give the story a much more personal feel that makes it easier for the reader to relate to. Another thing is the illustrations make it much more enjoyable because it allows u to read past the text and get a picture on paper of what is actually going on.

Understanding Comics

I enjoyed reading Understanding Comics by McCloud because of the way it sort of made it interesting to read about the history of graphic novels. I was very intrigued at first but sort got bored towards the end. I personally think that was due to it being quite long and I have never been the biggest fan of reading long comics. McCloud did the best job he could with graphic novel history and in my opinion did a great job. It was informative and entertaining as you can possibly be with history, in all a great job.

From the Vocabulary of Comics

I had to say that I really liked the way McCloud used a comic book to explain comic books. This is a weird way to do it but in a way it worked great. I really liked the way he was able to just keep your attention in all these different ways. I loved the way at the beginning how he kept explaining how this isn't a pipe, its a picture of a pipe, well no its a drawing of a picture of a pipe, but wait no its a printed copy of a drawing of a painting of a pipe. It just kept on going on and on it was interesting since it made you think of how comics work and how they make things seem one way but really they aren't. It made you understand what words in comics meant in a way. It was a great of explaining vocab of comics, and I greatly enjoyed it.

Lakeoff Answers

1. Words in war time make individuals feel not as a single person (who has a family, feelings, and emotions), but as a group of enemies. It allows us to feel better and not attatched to the individuals we are killing

2. I don't think you can ever attribute too much power to words. That is the problem our society has with raising people nowadays. We teach that words can never hurt, when in fact they hurt the most, and its not till we get older that we realize the truth in that statement.

3. I think this essay is about war, but it is discussing a major attribuute to war, and that "words." It is describing the thought process to kill in war of those involved. This attributes to how words play such a strong role in war, and ables us to use different language.

4. I believe she is correct to a certain degree on this statement, because by using this language soldiers are able to kill without thought, without regret, or any attatched emotions. The reason is because they don't look at the enemies as "an individual" but instead a catgorized 'hated' group. Because of this mind inset, many of their lives do change.

5. I think it is implict, if it is not looked at that way then her essay in my view would be weakened. But i feel it is implict because why would we, the Americans, be any different than any other country. We go to war also, and kill the same way that any other country kills, by using words to make it easier.

From Name-Calling to "Sticks and Stones"

Lakoff's excerpt, "The Power of Words in Wartime," describes the influence of language on the psychology of citizens and soldiers to create an acceptable atmosphere in which to wage war. Sadly, the true power of these descriptive words is evident in the willingness and even eagerness to commit acts of violence against other human beings. One thing the passage failed to touch on I think is the power of the psychology of the speaker on the words that he speaks. One's personal relationships, religious and familial background, social status, education, national and societal concepts, and even the whimsical emotions that can well-up suddenly when triggered all determine the words that one uses in any situation. Overall the passage fit my reading style because it was less concrete and more about the abstract idea of language and the dark depths of the mind in times of great fear and violence.

The description of the "Persecution of the Jews," was of a completely different style, but nonetheless very informative. It was more about the actions which stem from social perceptions of a people, in this case, the Jews. I learned of many actual occurences that represented an intense hatred for this group, fueled by indifference and blatant fear from those who could have risen against this movement and changed the bloody history that ensued. I did not gain much from this passage though, for it felt more like a list of dates and events than a comprehensive telling of the atrocities that occured; that is to say it seemed more concerned about the outward facts than the people behind the action, inaction and great suffering. Then again, I suppose the objective of the passage (to inform the reader of the events leading up to the well known historical atrocity) was very much achieved, and i do appreciate that. :)

Persecution of Jews

This article really brought light to the fact that the Jewish people in Germany really had it bad for a long time. Sometimes when people think of the Holocaust they believe that it all happened in one fellow swoop and all the sudden all the Jews were in concentration camp. As awful as that is, this story brings light to the situation that makes it all that much worse. The Jews all the way back to the early 1930’s were persecuted beyond belief. At first they took away the basic things that you and I take for granted, such as political speech, being able to seek out an education, etc. Slowly but surely more and more things were taken away. Jews were basically taken out of the economy and forced to sell all their goods at very low prices. As time progressed they were labeled and forced to put J’s on their passports. Eventually physical violence was used against the Jews and they were basically told they needed to leave Germany immediately. This was not as easy as one may think though, no countries wanted to accept the exiled Jews and they were stuck between a rock and a hard place. I can’t even imagine being told by your own country that you can’t live there any more and they’ve taken all of your money and you have no where to go and no one to turn to because all of your friends and family are in the same predicament.

The Power of Words in Wartime

This article calls attention to the interesting habit of nations and peoples, of coming up with some sort of nickname for those who they are at odds against. At first it can be seen as just a way to refer to them, or a shortened meaning of their cultures. But if we delve a little deeper into why this is so important, we find that it actually allows the soldiers to view their enemy as less than human. If they don’t see them as men or women, but rather the “enemy” it makes it much easier to do terrible things, without feeling guilty about it. I think this is a very insightful look at it. If I was on a battle field and started referring to my enemy, and the boy with brown hair and blue eyes, it would be much harder to want to do harm to them. However if you sort of numb the fact that they are humans, and look at them in a sort of evil creature way, it is much easier.

Lakoff Questions/Answers

1. Words in wartime have a great power to make soldiers feel better about themselves, by making the enemy seem inferior, less contemptible and not like "us."

2. No, I think language in wartime, is a big deal, especially because it gives us a sense of superiority and control over things, which makes us that much more willing to keep fighting during wartime.

3. I think this essay goes over both things since wartime does bring a different language into people, since they need to start talking down the enemy so they can feel superior and think they can have a better shot at winning. So wartime brings out his new type of language in people.

4. I think she is right in this statement, because unless soldiers take on this different way of talking and looking at other they will not be able to fight and in simple words kill another human being, but at the same time this new way of living does change many of them and cause things like Abu Ghraib.

5. I am not sure if this was a mistake or not, but I don't think it was implicit since this is a very important aspect of it. Because American soldiers to suffer because of this and they do have to deal with it. I think it is an important part missing form her essay done by error.

Lakoff article questions/answers

1. Lakoff states that the power of words is to make the opponent "killable" or "inferior."

2. I think that Lakoff is right when she states this. If we didn't have a mental degradation of opponents in wartime, we would feel more guilty about killing. The words provide a way to make killing just, and right. There would be another civil war within the united states, I think, if we didn't use any termanology for the opponent.

3. I think this is a very even call. It seems like it would be more on language because of the title "the POWER OF WORDS in wartime," but it is also states a lot of things about how wartime is effected. So I think it is an even call.

4. I agree that these habits make it inevitable. The torturing and humiliation at Abu Ghraib probably wouldn't have happened if there wasn't such a negative termanology put upon opponents in war. They were named as not even humans, so they wouldn't have feelings.

5. Again, I think this could be either way. It depends on the type of reader you are. Some people would agree that the information is implicit, but if you're like my dad, you would take the article literally and then think that since she didn't specifically state the information, the essay would be less accurate.

persecution of the Jews

I have read many articles and books about the holocaust, but this particular article was very informative without being incredibly graphic. Many people including myself wonder how something this extreme could happen with almost no objections or interferences. This artcle showed how the Nazis slowly convinced others that Jews were of no importance in society and from there forced them to immigrate to other countries or simply kill them. this process took years and i think it was the slowness of the process that allowed this procedure to occur.
I was also suprsied to see how little Hitlers name was mentioned in this article. Any time the topic of the Holocaust comes up Hitler is the first person to come to mind. Although he was the head leader there were many other people as well as countries who contributed to this extreme removal of the the jews.

The Power of Words in Wartime

1. According to Lakoff, the power that the words have on the soldiers is that when they make a reference to the soldiers on the other side, thy automatically talk about them as if they were an object, rather than other human beings. They, the government militants, want to have their soldiers to be completely objective to the fact that they are taking another humans' life, and they don't want their men to be overcome with the "unholy" fact of mental mutilation that they are causing their own guys.

2.I think the way we put things is very critical to the way we think, believe and even act. Or, at least, it leads to those things. I was born into the world in a very racist town. We, kids my age, were bred to believe that black people and illegal immigrant Mexicans were to be made fun of and more often than not were. You could tell the kids who were racist because of the way they would say the "n" word so negatively, or at all for that matter. Because of the way that they were spoken about. My parents were never racist around me about African- Americans, but they constantly spoke out about immigrants and made slurs. To this day I tend to have a negative mindset towards illegal immigrants... Illegal ones.

3. I think it does exactly what it is supposed to do, talk about the effects of language through the specific situation of war.

4.I think the way that she puts it, makes everything a real happening. I mean, she makes very valid points about how we put things..."We" meaning the American soldiers. The Abu Ghraib was a really unfortunate situation that ended badly, and should have, for the Americans that decided to let their hate for "them" get in the way of what they were really there for. To protect our freedom.

5. Her point is to get across that WORDS ARE HARMFUL. Period. She only states the American side because SHE is American, thus really only capable to express her personal values and experiences through her own ethnicity. At least, that's what I would do. The essay is directed towards the U.S. and it gets the point across well...

Persecution of the Jews

The persecution of the Jews during Hitler's rule of Germany gained force and popularity with German Nazis extremely fast because of the use of propaganda techniques and a very disturbed, yet convincing, leader. The persecution that took place in Nazi Germany is inhumane and intrensicly wrong; but is an example of the power of corruption and propaganda. Because social darwinism was already popular throughout the society, Hitler was able to come in, take control, and convince people that one race was in fact better than another. The same thing happened in Rwanda in the 1990's with the Hutu and Tutsi's and the Rwandan government. Because the world had already faced the Holocaust and seen the terror of genocide, you would think that we would be more aware and apt to end--quickly--anything mimicing the mass murders we saw during WWII. But are we? No. Not really. Propaganda techniques are used throughout the world to convince and decieve; killing many and blinding more to the things happening in the world. Every time I study the Holocaust I am completely appualed by the android-like following Hitler was able to keep up throughout the years. Can people be turned in to shells of human beings over the course of a few years--even months? The more I learn and see about the things happening in the world the less faith I have in government of any kind.

Hilter's Germany

The way that the persecution of the Jews escalated so rapidly, is mind-boggling! It started off as revoking certain privileges, which was wrong in the first place, but then is got progressively worse. I mean, they not only had to give up their practices and businesses, but if they were married to an "authentic" German, then you, if you were a man, were sent to jail, then to a concentration camp. They were forced to have special "Jewish" names and stamps on their passports. They had to have cards that they had to show, no matter what, wherever they went. AND that wasn't even the worst of it, everyone already knows what happened after things got REALLY bad. You, even if you had never heard of the Holocaust, could see where the gradual steps were headed towards. Death and lots of it.

"The Power of Words in Wartime"

1. Words have so much power and influence on the mind because we associate certain words with certain actions. We change the words we use during war because we have to change our mind set and seperate our thoughts from what we are actually accomplishing. Words begin to mentally condition us to believe or to make a task easier, such as killing which Talkoff mentions several times.

2. Lakoff put a lot of emphasis on usage of language in war, but I think that it really does have an impact on the mind set. It is not easy to kill someone when you have been told all your life not to, so you have to use alternative options in words that can change the way you see the task, and just accomplish it. Now, there are a lot of repercutions that follow this because once you have altered the mind set, it is hard to re-associate certain things as you would have before.

3.The essay is a little bit of both. She is taking a current topic and using it to demonstrate the use of language. It is really unique that she is using this issue because it is perfect in showing language we may have not thought about.

4. Lakoff is exaggerating in this aspect, because she is blaming language for the situation that happened. Now, Im saying exaggerating becuase it does hold some truth in the whole process of mental conditioning. I think the words had an impact on the "atrocity", but I dont think it was the initial motive.

5.I think it is implied that other countries would do the same as us. She even discusses an Austrian ethologist which makes me think that she is also connecting with other countries as well. She could have expanded on the discussion of other languages but I dont think that would have changed the impact of styl of her essay.

Power of Words in Wartime

1. If "we give them nicknames, we can see them as smaller, weaker and childlike -not worth taking seriously as fully human"(par.6).

2. Yes, it is obvious that she is completly unaware of the situation in Iraq. The examples were totally of base considering the fact that "the enemies" are not wearing uniforms and are not considered "enemies" until they not just armed but posing a serious threat to the military. Even then there are time when the US military is not allowed to retaliate when "the enemy" does open fire, as in the case of a late friend and former soldier who was not allowed to retaliate.

3. Primarily about war, I understand her motives but she uses too few examples (bad ones of Iraq) and little evidence to support her arguement. The introduction to the essay is more informative than the actual work itself.

4. She barely explains the situation -as a writer you cannot assume that the reader is completly informed, and uses only her opinion to support the statement.

5. Weakens it totally, I recieved little more than frustration when reading this article.

Persecution of The Jews

I thought this article was very straight forward and presenting the facts with almost no emotional attachment to the issue. It was presented as historically accurate as possible and I really liked that aspect of the article. I was unaware of all the different smaller steps taken by the Nazi's to try and get the Jewish population to move out such as barring them from taking "German names". I wonder why more of the Jewish population didn't see this as signs and move quicker, but it was their home and I couldn't imagine being in their situation. I think the other global super powers at the time, including the United States, handled the immigration issue completely wrong. A lot of the affects of WWII would have never happened if the world had taken the time to understand what was actually happening instead of turning their head for so long.

Persecution of the Jews

The process and hardship that the Jews had gone through from 1933-9 is horrific. To start with such basic ways through the Nuremberg Laws to separate Jews as the bane of Germany as inferiors displays the unbelievable evil that people can show. With each passing year, it would only get harder on the Jews with stricter laws making Germany inhabitable as a human being for Jews. Reading The Persecution of the Jews was much like reading Oedipus Rex with the dramatic irony. You feel as you wish you could just tell them to get out of Germany and even Europe before things get worse, but even then the emmigrating process was only to those who had proof of employment and could afford it. It is tragic to see that many were trapped and hopeless only to face persecution.

The Power of Words in Wartime

1. Words inable humans to do actions that most would never do because words manipulate them into believing their actions are justified.

2. While I don't think she attributes too much to the power of words, I didn't think she addressed that whose mouth the words are coming out of are just as important as the actual words.

3.I think this essay is about the interaction of language and war. She is dealing with how both affect the other and thus I don't think you can't say one is being primarily spoken about.

4. No I don't think she is exaggerating, words are the easiest way to distance yourself from another person and once you accept them as true you no longer have sympathy for them.

5. Of course Americans fall victim to the power of words by our enemies. Both sides have to over come the idea that killing is bad no matter what and words are the easiest way to make that transition.

The Power of Words in Wartime

1. According to Lakoff, words psychologically allow the opposing group to seem unhuman and therefore acceptable to kill. Words give the power to kill. An interesting point Lakoff makes- "The use of the language developed for military purposes by civilians reassures them that war is not murder."
2. Lakoff has a point that language attribues power to war, but it is the persons choice weather or not to act on those words. If you think it is wrong to kill a German soldier, but okay to kill a "gook," that is your choice. If someone calls you a mongrel, it is your decision to kill them because of a name. I think the words contribute to the amount of self control you have. If you have to rename someone to harm them or to justify harming them, maybe you should rethink your actions. You shouldn't be harming another person to begin with.
3. This essay is primarily about war. When language is used to harm someone in any way, language is war. Lakoff is describing the power of the words we use during wartime and how these words justify murder. We use different terms or names for those we kill because we need to justify why "war is not murder." If we aren't killing something human, then it can't be murder. Right? Wrong.
4. I agree with Lakoff. Granted, she could be exaggerating a little, but these soldiers are ending the life of another human as a career. When you work for months or years at a time, who's to say that they don't get caught up in the job? When your job is to emotionally and physically abuse someone, eventually there has to be a breaking point. Someone snaps mentally and goes psycho- they decide to enjoy their job. Sick.
5. I'm not sure why this question is asked. Lakoff made it clear in the beginning of the essay that Americans are called names and victims of the power of words. I actually like that she started out talking about how Americans are victimized because we as Americans tend to think of ourself before others. As McCloud said, the human race is conceited, but Americans tend to take that to the next level. I think the beginning of the essay strengthened the rest.

Answer to "The Power of Words in Wartime"

1. Lakoff says that words have the power to change peoples opinions of their opponents. In wartime words have the ability to dehumanize the enemy in order to make it easier to kill them.

2. I agree with Lakoff's opinion about the power of words. Words can cause much more damage and have longer lasting power than any other the weapon of man, because words can direct where those weapons are pointed.

3. This essay is about both language and war and how they relate to each other. Lakoff is pointing out the importance of language, and how strong a power it has to affect peoples thoughts and feelings. And at the same time she is talking about war, and the role that language plays in such times.

4. I think Lakoff's use of the word inevitable is too strong. Although the "linguistic habits" of soldiers may predispose them to degrading their enemies it does not make torture inevitable. Ultimately individuals are responsible for their actions and can not blame language for their choices.

5. I think her target audience is Americans. She adds the additional countries to illustrate that this a global reaction in times of war and is not exclusive to the American mindset.

Power of Words in Wartime

1. Lakoff believes that the power of words in wartime have the ability to make it easier to kill a person by changing what to call the ones that the soldiers combat.

2. I think that Lakoff is right when she says that it is easier to kill.

3. I believe that this essay is primarily about anti-war. Lakoff uses Abu Ghraib as an example that people have to go into war with a different language and mentality so that there is no problem with torturing and humiliating another human being. War causes people to think and see things differently, and to make soldiers believe that torturing and humiliating another as "unthinkable" is not right.

4. I think Lakoff exaggerates that people have to absorb through linguistic habit. What if the people the soldiers combat really are less than humans and are a threat to society? Can you really say people have to absorb a linguistic habit to make them feel they are fighting an enemy? Most likely, the feeling will be there already.

5. Americans are also victims. There probably hasn't been a time in United States history when Americans did not go to war as the victim or belief as or to become one, and as the aggressor. But then again "victim" is just one of those words. I think her arguement is not for Americans to stop war, but to stop war altogether.

The Persecution of the Jews

Reading and learning about the Holocaust is such a hard thing for me. The way that the Jews were persecuted and treated is unacceptable. I have a hard time imagining myself as a Nazi. I don't understand how people can be so evil and racist. And the horrible thing is that it was the majority of the German population that were degrading the Jews. It was not the government or army that were responsible for the raids on Kristallnacht, but rather the citizens. What happened to the so called belief that man is basically good? I believe that the Nazis are proof that the heart of man is basicly evil. And not only the Nazis, but the other countries. Where were they when the Jews were treated in such an inhumane fashion?

Persecution of the Jews

Admittedly, I probably know less than most about the Holocaust, and even less about the events that led up to it, so this passage had a lot of information that I didn't even know about. Everyone knows about the hardships that the Jews had to go through before and during the Holocaust, but to hear what happened in such specific detail was incredible. The Germans truly did go about their horrible ways in the best way possible for them, was to take away each and every privilege and law from the Jews little by little, so other countries would not suspect them. Before you know it, every basic law given to all people have been taken away from the Jews. Probably the most terrifying aspect of the entire passage was probably the German government's belief of justification. They truly believed that they were superior to the Jewish people and took any measure possible to rid them of the "problem." Also according to the essay, not one person in the government ever felt morally wrong for what they were doing to the Jews. In fact, the only conflict they had was the approach of how to dispose of the Jews. The amount of effort they put into this was also astounding. It had gotten to the point with the help of propaganda and other means that the majority of the public agreed with Hitler and his ideas. Lastly, the lack of support that other countries gave to the Jews was unsettling. I always thought that each country did their best to support Jews and help when needed, but it seems that with their actions they in a way justified the further persecution of Jews by the Germans. In all, however, this is just a reminder of how cruel humanity can be to each other and that with the right precautions, this could happen all over again.

The Power of Words in Wartime

1. Lakoff seems to believe that words give soldiers the ability to kill and not think about who they are fighting, but what they are fighting for. They are also used for the civilians, to help reassure them that soldiers are not simply murdering people with lives and families outside of the war.
2. In a way, I agree and disagree with her. Derogatory words are a very effective way to break the spirit of a person. It also helps the person who dealt the name cope with the killing of another. However, every person is different and some are not effected by such words. Many, in fact, may use the word to boost their drive in the war, sort of like how Americans did with the word "Yankee".
3. I see the essay more about war. While every word she uses can be used at any time, in her essay she is focusing on the usage of the words during wartime, not necessarily the ethics of the words in general.
4. I think she is more or less right that soldiers must take use these words in order to deal with murder. Saying that by using these words, war and torture is inevitable is a bit of a stretch. While it may add on to justifying the cause of a country going to war with another, I'm not sure that name-calling is enough on its own to start a war, at least in modern time.
5. It's a little disappointing that she didn't include any of the names that other countries call us, but I still think that the idea was implied. All of the points she made in her essay, like how we use words to justify killing one another or using them as reassurance that this type of killing is necessary, can apply to any other country as well. So if that's the case, it would seem obvious that they are treating war the same way we are at least in terms of the language used.

Power of Words

1. Words have the power to dehumanize people. They enabled someone to see other people as lesser or different so killing another human feels easier.
2. I agree with her. By giving the enemy a degrading name, the mind starts to see them in an unpleasant manner. The words we assign to the enemy set a boundary between the "us" and "them" and emphasize the differences, making them seem less human.
3. I see it mostly as an essay on words. After all, everything she says can go the other way. If we give a certain group a positive name or title, we again draw the boundary between us and them, but this time it is a positive boundary.
4. Though I think the language has a major impact on such events, I do not feel the necessarily make the even inevitable, but I definitely think they help cause them. In order for the such an atrocity to happen, the language must be in place.
5. While I read the essay, I kept waiting for her to mention some of the names against Americans used by our enemies. I feel that essay was weakened by not mentioning the, but I do think it was intentional. It gave the impression that Americans are the only ones to give such degrading names to others, making us seems like bad guys in this case.

Persecution of the Jews

Though I have studied the Holocaust before, I have never studied the events leading to the Jewish persecution in such detail. I found it very interesting to read about the exact and careful steps that lead from the Jews being a normal citizens to nothing more than scum. It was fascinating to see the way something that seems so irrational to me was so accepted at the time. By taking small and careful steps, the Nazis managed to turn the entire country against the Jews. Somehow, people ceased to see Jews as Germans, and instead saw them as a completely different group of people. What really got to me was the rationalization after the November 9-10th events. As I read the article, I realized that something like this could still happen today. With the right power and planning, a person can manipulate an entire society's thoughts and beliefs, and can therefore control its actions.

Persecution of the Jews

This article is so instresting but so scary at the same time. I mean how the Jewish people went from being like everyday citizens to being treated no better then dirt. All because they didn't fall into one person's definition of the true race. Then all the people were really forced to go along with all these acts, due to anger at their situation and fear of having the government come for them. But the scary part was that some of the things that lead up to the holocaust happened here in america. for example the second Nuremberg Law which was the "Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor" was similar to some of the Jim Crow laws. They prohibited interracial marriages and punishing those that got involved espeically the males. That's why reading this is kinda scary. If it wasn't for the fact that blacks were slaves and needed that could have lead to a "holocaust" here in the US.

Pre WWII Persecution of Jews

This article was interesting in just the fact that it wasnt about the Holocaust but what lead up to it. It is so fascinating that people can persecute a race beacuse they are different and want to in a sense exterminate them. Honestly though our world is no different today. I think we are blind to what we do sometimes in this world. I think we should step back and take what has happened in the past and think about what we are doing now in the present and how it is similar. Maybe take an alike situation with persecution and see how very comparable it is today... yet still many do not see it.
We should learn from these many mistakes in history and make a change and a new life where we live as one community. It is a stretch and so, so unreachable but it is what we should strive for in the least.

The Power of Words in Wartime

1. Words in wartime give soliders the power to kill other humans. The are use to dehumanize those which we are fighting against.
2. I think Lakoff is right. We really don't realize how much power our words have. Words have left people emotinally scarred for life or build them up to do great things. Sometimes they get people to get off their ass and go do something.
3. This essay is really about both war and the power of language. That's why it's named the power of words in wartime. It is about wartime language and what a difference it makes when combatting enemies.
4. I don't think that Lakoff is exaggerating that our linguistic habits make atrocities inevitable. That's how Hitler brain washed the German people to do wha they did. If we keep dehumanizing our enemy then we will see them as less and treat them as such.
5. The failure of not having Americans as victims to wartime language does weaken the arguement but it would be worse if there wasn't a bit of background about language used to describe american enemies. Lakoff does make it appear that we Americans dish it out but don't recieve it which we all know isn't true. All in all it was a good and intresting read that got me and my room mate talking about wartime and american attitudes.

The Power of Wors in Wartime

1] Word make it okay and justifiable to kill
2] I agree with her, nody wants to kill The Johnsons in Germany, but they would be okay if it were Those J's in that "Kraut" country.
3] I think its about both, war involves language and lanuage invloves war. War is about disputes, which start verbally and lead to death. Language provides a medium for war such as actual words of disagreement to propaganda. The article encompasses this, by talking about how we need both to feel just in fighting the fight.
4] I think there maybe some exaggeration, becuase its one thing to kill some with a bomb or gun or quickly, but to torture them and prolong agony takes more than absorbed lanuage...it takes anger, "brainwashing" in some cases, no sense of remorse, and possible alter mental state.
5] I don't know if it weakens it, but it just seems to go along with our culture...we fret over what we do to other people and not the fact that they do it right back at us...there is this mentality that America is above others, so we need to point out and fix our flaws--but usally after we have gone and made war policing the world.

I thought it was interesting how the intrnational community had big part in the war against Jews. By not accepting Jewish immigrants and placing restrisctions such as the markings of passports, they were fueling and helping Germany to use worse measure against the few Jewish communites left. It was a bit of a shock to me to find out that the first thing the NAzis wanted to do was to convince Jews of leaving the country, the killing came later, when they couldn't immigrate to other places and beig forced to stay in Germany. It was a terrible process but an effective one because they stated to work on their self esteem, if somebody does not have a self esteem they can't ask for help and they can't fight back.
It was interesting how the international community at a time tought of Jews as a burden because nobody wanted to take the responsability of taking them in, it was until after when the inevitable attrocitiesstarted when they realized the mistake they made.

Persecution of the Jews

I found this piece to be a refresher on the Holocaust. This article just points out how interically planned out changed geared for specific reform with personal agenda taking affect can lead a country into more dispair. Hitler saw an in and he took it, and since no other politcal figure head seemed to be doing anything he took it and ran. The fact that the country went along with doesn't surprise, since humans have this air of "well its not happening to me, so I'm fine with it-as long as it not me" or "Its better you than me". It was in away survival, everyone had reason to fear Hitler, Jew or not, becuase you were either with him or against him. Hitler used the Jews as a scapegoat and used all of his power to wipe them out. He dictated there names, jobs, where they could be, and wheter they lived or died. He wanted to create this surpreme race he didn't even fit into, which is kinda ironic. I always thought it was odd that he didn't just kill all of them in the concentration camp, but I guess he wanted to prolong the suffering of the Jews to make up for the prolong suffering of the Nation.

The Power of Words in Wartime

1. Words in wartime seem to have a maniupulating psycological power where demeaning "the enemy" to just the enemy or something else more dorogitory takes the act of killing humans okay.

2. I think she is very right in saying how powerful words are in war. Giving an enemy a name can help build a huge sense of us versus them and serve as a justifiable reason in itself to be at war.

3. I think that this artcile is about what exactly the title says. It is about laguage in wartime not more about war or words but them both put together. She discusses how war is not right but she just as much discusses words and how hateful they can become.

4. I think that that what she says is almost entirely true. Yes these linguistic habits may be extremely important to some, everyone has their own resaons for fighting and may not care who or what their opponents are called.

5. I think that it is obvious that it is not only Americans that use these slang terms to demoralize the enemy. If you can not realize this then i think you should probably get out more. Humans as a race do this act of liguistic hate and enemy demorilizing all the time, especially during wartime.

"The Power of Words in Wartime."

The use of language has the ability to create, separate, and destroy all kinds of people, places, and ideologies. Words, when used correctly and effectively, can create in our minds an idea, or stereotype if you will, of a certain person or group of people. During wartime, referencing the opposing force as “the enemy” instead of as Iraqis, Germans, or Japanese creates a mental separation between oneself and those that our politics—good or bad—have decided to pit us against; thus, making it easier for a soldier to be able to kill, and for those on the home-front to be able to hate. The people in charge of countries are there for a reason—they are hard-wired with the ability to perform nuero-linguistic programming on the masses. In the circumstances Lakoff describes, I feel that she is correct in arguing that language is a powerful weapon. The use of language is the starting point and stepping-stone for everything that happens thereafter. This essay is not focused primarily on language or on war, it focuses on the correlation between the two—that war cannot be separated from language. Without propaganda techniques the reason for a soldier to go to war seems avoidable and unimportant. You cannot tell a soldier he is going to go kill someone with a family; a wife, a baby, parents, brothers, and sisters. You cannot tell a soldier that the people he is bombing were once children too, that they eat, play, and love just like him. He—the soldier—as a compassionate human-being, would not do it. You tell a soldier that he is not killing a person; but that he is killing an idea, a threat, an enemy. This makes it easier for the soldier to do what he is supposed to do; and it makes those at home able hate and discriminate against those that we, as a part of the socio-political machine, are supposed to. The barrier created by linguistics coupled with the mental anguish caused by war, make the abuses such as the one at Abu Ghraib likely to happen. I agree with Lakoff when she says, “To make abuses at Abu Ghraib unthinkable, we would have to abolish war itself.” In response to the question of whether or not it is necessary to illustrate America as the victims of the power of words—I say—It doesn’t matter. At all. It really makes no difference. War is war and every participant, each side, is both the abuser and the victim of everything associated with war. We are the killers and the killed, we are the torturers and the tortured, we abuse and are abused. So victimizing America in this essay would only add to the feelings of “us” and “them.” It isn’t “us” and “them” it’s everybody and everything together—we are all guilty of the atrocities associated with war. We are also all victims of the atrocities of war, so it doesn’t matter who said what or who did what to whom—the fact is that we’re all basically the same and until we start expressing those ideas we’re sort of stuck in limbo.

The Powe of Words in Wartime

1) Words have the power to destroy not only a person but an entinre country. They give a sense of comfort for those who are kiling another individual because in their eyes they are not killing a human being but something less than that
2) I think she is right, we tend to polarize things and go into the us verus them group. It is common for us to describe somebody we do not understand or agree with as "enemy" because it carries a sense of danger to it that gives us an excuse to harm another individual. To attack another is not natural, but socially construted for compassion is the first response.
3)I see it as the way a war starts, language and war are not separate entities but one, because one cannot exists without the other. If you create war you need a language to be able to function in a certain manner (ex. killing without regret) and if you start with a language that demeans other people then you already have the spark to fire a war.
4) I actually believe she is right. In every environment there is a languagethat goes along with it, no matter if you are in art, politics or war. If you have that language embeded in your skull and as a soldier you kill others without regret, then it is not going to stop. And even is you come to a point where you realize that what you are doing is really wrong you just might continue to ignor the attrocities you've made in order to maintain your sanity.
5) I believe it was important to make us understand that our actions carry extreme consequences. If somebody tells us that someone is doing something terrible to us we tend to ignore that we might be doing the same back to them and we develop a power hatred against the other side and refuse to accept that in order for that to hapened two parties are necessary. If we learn that we dehumanise first and what it does it is easier for us to realize that they do the same to us because that is how a war functions and we should come to a point where we decide to just eliminate war because it is the right thing to do.

"The Power of Words in Wartime" & "Persecution of the Jews"

"The Power of Words in Wartime"

According to Lakoff during wartime, words have the power to make the enemy seem less human, which makes it easier to kill them.
I agree with the points Lakoff makes about the power of words. People are easily persuaded to believe what someone is saying if their language is appealing enough, in any instance.
I think that this essay can be referred to language at anytime. I mean that is primarily the tool used in propaganda, so why not use it during wartime and when there is a sale at the mall? It only makes sense.
I do not completely agree with Lakoff on the account of Abu Ghraib, because although soldiers are trained to think of their enemy as less than human, in some part of their mind they can still remember that they are part of the same species. So I don’t think that they can totally think that their captive is not human anymore just because of a few new titles given to them. I think that there is much more military training that goes into making someone a torturer.
In some ways I can see how the different languages could be used as a demising factor, but it does also make the American troops not look so bright when they call the Iraqis “hajis” and try to use it in a derogatory way when it is actually a term of respect to older Muslim men.

**********************
"Persecution of the Jews"

No matter how much I read about the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany, I can still not believe how the citizens followed Hitler and his ideals. I mean, I understand that they were just looking for someone who had an idea of any possible way they could stop raise their standard of living, but to be so desperate that you start destroying a whole peoples' way of life, I would thing that someone would have caught on to it being a not so good idea.
I don't think I had ever heard the number of 35 Jews being killed during Kristallnacht, so that was a new piece of information. I can see how more people died later because of the injuries given to them that night, but the thought of suicide after that had never crossed my mind. But I guess it is understandable when you are seeing that your country has turned its back on you and has started to take away your home, your livelihood, your citizenship, and even the people who you thought were your friends.

Gahh! I find it so interesting to learn about Nazi Germany. Depressing, but fascinating.

Words in Wartime

1.) Lakoff believes that the power of words in wartime can be extended to many things: propaganda, de-humanizing of an enemy, as well as making a cause feel justified.
2.) I think she puts a little too much power into the impact of words, although she does bring up a good point.
3.) I think the main point of the passage is about war, with language being a common element in the paper.
4.) She's exaggerating a little bit. Although Abu Gharib was pretty awful, if we had labeled the enemies "Iraqi's", I think the torture procedures would have still occured.
5.) Without a doubt, it weakens her essay. She completely failed to mention Tokyo Rose, the radio personality who played American music, and stated how the American's cause in WWII in the Pacific would ultimately fail, nor does she mention German and Russian propaganda.

first responce

I love the way that Scott McCloud has written his text book on graphic novels like a graphic novel. I think that it is a very unique way of appealing to what he knows his readers are interested in. It is an easy way for him to get his lessons across using the same parts of the brain his audience uses while they are enjoying the pass time of reading graphic novels. Going into the history of it all was something I had not thought about. I mean it seems like it should be common cense to see what the ancient Egyptians did in their drawings and relate it back, but my mind has not been conditioned to do that. I found it entertaining how he came up with his definition by using an audience to put in different feedback in what he was saying. It reminded me of an involved class discussion, like on the first day of school when you are trying to figure out what the class rules should be. I think that I will enjoy reading more of McCloud’s thoughts on the subject of graphic novels. Also, my favorite part in the second chapter was that he made us realize that we were not “listening” to what he had to say in his word bubbles, and we were not actually seeing a stop sign, or what other symbols seen in graphic novels.

McCloud!

There is such a huge perspective and view of comic books that is constantly missed by society because when people hear comic books they assume it is someone who is just sitting around reading about violence and useless knowledge. In reality, comics are very educational and easy ways for a writer to communicate with the reader and for the reader to in turn relate themselves into the comic. The different levels of comic drawing are fascinating in how the motive or message the writer has will impact the view how they draw the comic. It is crazy how if the writer wants to relate to a wide variety of people, they just need to draw more simple pictures so that any person can put themselves in the situation. Like McCloud described, TV is just like a comic book and how children love their shows because the characters are simple, easy to relate to, and the children can imagine themselves in the situation.
The history that McCloud describes about Comics is very interesting and is often forgotten OR is specially labeled as a separate category outside of comics. I love that definition of comic he gives by describing it as “juxtaposed pictorial and other images in deliberate sequence.” When McCloud gives examples of how comics have impacted history, it really shows that without having those pictures, we may not know what happened, who was involved, or anything about that part of history. Its captivating to know how much comics are used in all parts of history.

McCloud's vocab

i thought it was interesting how McCloud disscusses how our eyes view comics and how our mind cant avoid seeing certain things, such as his example with the happy face. Not only is it how we see things, but by the things we see people can then "become the character". This allows me to see the big difference between simply reading a book and reading something like a graphic novel. The graphic novel allows you see simple visual affect and still get a story. With the pictures you place your self in the story easier.

Carmen's post on Understanding Comics

I really liked McCloud's discussion about the history of comics. I never thought of the Egyptian heiroglyphics as ancient comics.

When he talks about defining what a comic is or whatever, it dragged as well. It is difficult to define what exactly a comic is, but it reminded me of my Music Ed class when we had to define music- we couldnt agree on anything! I'm good with calling it sequential art for class purposes.

Carmen Hernandez post to McCloud's Vocabulary of Comics

In McCloud's Vocabulary of Comics, McCloud talks about the annoying icons. I did think it was interesting at first because I never thought about icons in such a way, but then he dragged on too long.

I really like the discussion about the detail of faces. I never thought that the illustrations would be simple for a reason. I love that he calls the human race conceited- it is so true!

The Vocabulary of comics was pretty interesting. It covered a lot of things I never took the time to really think about. For example, what we call pictures is really just one category of the icon, which by McCloud's definition encompasses pretty much any type of image that represents anything. An icon could be as simple as a stop sign, to a feature-length animated movie, so obviously, the variety of situations the word icon can be used for differs greatly. Another important point was the idea of amplification through simplification. It is the idea that the less features a character has, the more the reader must focus on the details the character does have. This lets the writer/illustrator subtly choose what he thinks is the most important feature of the character and gives the audience a specific idea to work with. It truly is a brilliant idea. His last point was the universality of the cartoon image, which was basically the more "cartoony" a face is, more people could be identified as that face. He then goes into how our minds are able to see faces in almost anything, even just scribbled circles. While this may be true, I think that the main reason we are able to do this is because we go into the drawing or whatever the object may be with the idea of looking for a face, and the pure coincidence that it is shaped with the semblance of a face. The scribbled blobs on the paper could come out to be various objects, and I think it depends on what your mind set is before being subjected to it. I also believe his assumption that people do not think of themselves as detailed as we actually are is a bit case-specific as well. I think that some people truly do picture themselves exactly as they look to the rest of us, simply due to the fact that not everyone can oversimplify themselves to that degree and some have the knowledge of their face well enough to picture it in their minds. Overall though, I think that McCloud brings up great ideas and topics that could question people's original thoughts on the subject of cartoons and imagery in general.

Now it's time for me to stop rambling ha

Understanding Comics

The article actually explained a lot that I never previously even thought to think about. I never thought about when the first “comic” came into existence, so it was really interesting to hear about the debate surrounding what is the first comic developed or who created it. Also, the sheer broadness of the definition of what comics are was also very interesting. I suppose I was one of those who believed that our modern comic books and graphic novels where the only form of media that could be considered a comic book. It was great to get an actual meaning of the word and to see now how many paintings and drawings that tell a sequenced story could be considered a comic. It was interesting to hear what is not considered a comic too. Previously, I thought that anything with a picture of something and a text bubble was a comic, even if it was just a one-shot picture with no follow up. Come to find out that it has to be multiple images that follow a coherent thought to even be considered a comic. Finally, thinking about the future of comic books is pretty exciting as well. For a semi-comic geek like myself, thinking of how artist can take our beloved characters from comics today and the past, and showing them in a new light, not only through new storylines and character development but also through a new way of formatting a comic or other interesting ideas. The fact that comics have so much room to grow and expand into wild variations of what it is now while also having enough history and background to work off of to support that variety just makes waiting for this new event all the harder to do.

McCloud Understanding Comics...is there only one way?

First of all, I've been wanting to say this for awhile if you look at McCloud for awhile his cartoon looks alittle like Waldo-like "Where's Waldo"...just a thought.

The title bothered me at first, "Understanding Comics", I honestly thought that how we read and interepted comics was going to be wrapped up in some neat little box. I was not happy about that since I'm quite a fan of graphic novels and knew that it was a pretty broad and relativaly new genre, ie. un-boxable in my mind. McCloud piece surprised me by going against my first impressions of his title. Basically, McCloud goes over the history and unboutbly board ever changing history of the graphic novel, which showed how a lot of unlikely things could be considered graphic novels, like the hyrogilphics(sp) the Eygptians painted, which spurred me to think of the cave painting of the Mardu Aboriginies which would paint sequential pictures that told the tale of different piesces of The DreamTime. Sequential, not an everyday word, but a word that is key to the graphic novel. McCloud breaks down to the nitty gritty what a graphic novel is or atleast kinda is, which is no easy task considering the vastness of the genre. I feel that McCould presented this infromation in a comical/entertaining/interesting way, which is great considering all the long boring text we are used to reading. By McCloud presenting this wealth of knowledge in this way, he actually, intentional or not, is adding to the argument that graphic novels are promoting literacy. By McCloud showing the vastness of the genre, he is pointing out the difficulty in boxing the understanding of this new form into one school of thought.

McCloud Vocabulary Of Comics...or is it?

I actually found more vocabulary in McCloud's other piece, where as here I found the concept of perception and comic idea to prevalint. I guess all in all that's still considered vocab, but his appoarch was very well thought out. The opening of the pipe, or should I say the copy of copy of copy of a copy of a drawing that was a painting of a real pipe, drives the readers mind into the concept of perception. When McCloud starts talking about our ability to see ourselves in everything, only to realize we have no concrete image of ourself. This brings up an interesting concept, it like when we wrote the word on our hand; we have a "metaphorical" sense of who we are, we can descride our traits and our basic characterists, but we have no "literal sense of who we are, like how we were blurred in the picture, or even when we aren't blurred we may see ourself and no it s us but still its nots concrete. So when we see other people we can see both the "literal" and "metaphorical" perceptions of people. Relating that back to McCloud, we need to look at both the "literal" and the "metaphorical"...examine what the books says at face value and what the means, ie: authors intent or/and your own deeper meaning.