I was ok with Animal Farm, but...

[intertribal]

Yann Martel:  I needed to find two animals that might represent the Jews. So trading on positive stereotypes, donkeys are held to be stubborn, they’ve endured, in a sense. Jews are historically have been stubborn in a sense, they’ve held onto their culture, to their religion, despite centuries of discrimination. At the same time, we hold monkeys to be clever, to be nimble. Well, historically, Jews have proven themselves to be exceptionally nimble and clever, they’ve adapted to all different kinds of circumstances, all kinds of different countries, cultures, and also historically, they’ve contributed enormously, disproportionately to the arts and sciences.  So trading on those positive stereotypes, I chose, well, here, how can I represent Jews? Well, here, I’ll represent them as this combination, these two animals, monkeys and donkeys. It could also be that the donkey is sort of a representation of the body and monkey the representation of the mind of Jews.

David Sexton:  What is one to say? Perhaps, to be kind, that Martel, not Jewish himself incidentally, is just not very bright.

Yann Martel:  If he says that of me, I wonder what he feels about Art Spiegelman in Maus. In Maus the Jews are characterised as mice. But were the Jews mouse-like in the Warsaw ghetto uprising? I wonder how he feels about that characterisation.

Hey hey hey hey,or: we could not use different animal species to symbolize different groups of people, especially when you're using stereotypical animal traits to match up with stereotypical human group traits.  We could not reduce huge groups of God's creatures to one or two sweeping adjectives.

Just a thought!

Comments

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

It's possible that it's not (I've never read it), and I think he used a different methodology to pick animals (more in keeping with the way political propaganda picks what animals to use in cartoons - "The French being frogs recalls an oft-used nickname, itself a lampoon of French culinary use of frogs.")

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I mean, seeing as it was about his father's time in a concentration camp, or something...

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

ah, here:

"The Jews, as mice, satirizes the Nazi portrayal of Jews as vermin. Also, this may symbolize the resourcefulness many Jews exhibited during the Holocaust and the inability of the Nazis to completely wipe out such a species. On page 42 of Maus II (page 202 of The Complete Maus), the author is questioned by an Israeli Jew, depicted as a rather stuffy mouse who has gained some weight. When asked what particular animal he would have chosen to represent the Israelis, Spiegelman answers: "I have no idea... porcupines?""

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

"The use of animals in the graphic narrative may seem incongruous, but instead of creating social typecasts, Spiegelman lampoons them and shows how foolish it is to classify a human being based on nationality or ethnicity.[8] His images are not his: they were "borrowed from the Germans... Ultimately what the book is about is the commonality of human beings. It's crazy to divide things down along nationalistic or racial or religious lines... These metaphors, which are meant to self-destruct in my book — and I think they do self-destruct — still have a residual force and still get people worked up over them."[9]"

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Yep, that is the page I took the French frogs thing from. Hence why I said he was using a different methodology.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Then how can you ridicule the both of them for being stereotypical and whatnot?

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

I do think that Spiegelmann is still dealing in human and animal stereotypes, although he goes about it differently (and inconsistently - it depends on the animal). The vermin one is the Nazi stereotype of Jews (and that's the most interesting one). Frogs is a worldwide association with French cuisine, plus his own assessment of French people's un-sweetness. Gypsy moths are... word association. The Swedish reindeer appear to be regional association. The pig one I'm not sure, because the wiki page is a little vague. I mean, it's very hard not to deal in stereotypes of some kind if you're going to make an allegorical shortcut that people will immediately "get."

I don't know why he chose cats or dogs, although I would guess he was going for the traditional Tom and Jerry motif (mice are the sympathetic protagonists, cats are evil, dogs are allies of mice) that Western audiences are familiar with. And yeah, this is the one I dislike the most.

Granted, that doesn't take into account his quote about wanting the metaphors to self-destruct. Maybe they do; I don't know. It's hard for me to imagine how they could, but I've been wrong before. I think that classifying Jews as vermin (but in a positive light) is definitely lampooning and destroying a Nazi metaphor, but as for the other animals/characters, I don't see it. It feels more like replacing Nazi animal-human metaphors with his own.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

*Spiegelman, that is

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I don't really care how he chose the animals so much as how the characters actually act. I don't think you can judge the choice of characters just based on how he chose what animal for who. Then you're pretty much limited to assuming it's a stereotype because you're looking for what the animals represent to people, which has already been defined by you as a stereotype.

That said, I usually dislike Nazi stories because they end up being heavily moralistic, but not all of them are, and often less so for people who were actually there than people who write about it with no experience of the individual nuances and hypocrisies and whatnot.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I suppose I am limiting myself there. I guess I look at it and think, "this is not going to end in a way that doesn't make me mad," which, you're right, I shouldn't assume. Maybe it turns out there are other cats that are not Nazis!

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

haha

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Maybe Sophie Scholl is a good tabby.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

It reads like you're just looking for an excuse to congratulate yourself on your moral superiority for something most people accept. I don't really think you are that self-righteous like, as a person, but that is how this post reads to me.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Not how it was intended. Unless moral superiority = having an opinion.

I know that Maus uses various different methodologies (I think the whole "bunnies would be too sweet for the French, because of all the centuries of anti-semitism" thing [paraphrased] is reminiscent of what Martel is doing, but the basis of choosing vermin is totally not), but I just don't get assigning different social groups to different animal species based on your perception of that species (often how much you like/dislike the species). Animal Farm doesn't bother me because those animals are political symbols, not ethnic/religious symbols. Admittedly, I did not know that Maus was intended to be a satire of this tendency, and that sort of confuses me, because I'm not sure how that would be accomplished by replicating the tendency.

It's not something I see as a great evil in the world, or even something harmful, since animals don't read. But I don't like it, for a lot of small reasons that add up into a dislike. And mostly I dislike it because of the way it treats the non-human animal species. I feel like it takes lazy shortcuts, trading on the audience's perception of the various animals so that various characters are quickly categorized as either "good" or "evil" according to the social perception of the animal. Which may well be totally irrational, but that is, quote, how it reads to me.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Well, this seemed less like an opinion and more like a kneejerk reaction. Of course what Martel was doing was stupid. Every good liberal would agree with that. But Maus? I mean, attack the graphic novel canon (I say canon here b/c this is something that's often assigned for courses and whatnot) if you want, but read it first, and back it up with a good argument. I haven't read it either, but I'm not going to agree with you just because you've tapped into the right "Racism is Bad" and "Stereotyping is Bad" beliefs.

First of all, stereotyping is a fact of life. It's how people think. It's a shortcut for the fact that groups and categories have real social meaning, and until you get rid of the real causes for that social meaning, stereotypes will continue to exist. The best you can hope for, I think, is people recognizing that stereotypes are just that and being willing to recognize individuals as such and revise their perception to fit individuals that they meet.

Admittedly, I did not know that Maus was intended to be a satire of this tendency, and that sort of confuses me, because I'm not sure how that would be accomplished by replicating the tendency.

And this is why I think your reaction was kneejerk. You assume, based not even on having read the book, that Maus is doing the same thing. A lot of times replicating something has to be done in order to point to it at all. And I think in general, raising people's ire about this sort of thing is a better sign that you're hitting on the real issue than getting the reaction "Oh yes, that's bad, we know that's bad, let's all rant about how stupid it was to do something so stereotypical nowadays and ridicule them," because I think we're not fundamentally better. We're just as subject to stereotypes. We gain more from questioning them than pointing fingers at others.

And well, I can see the "good" and "evil" animals thing for maybe, say, Disney movies, but I think that's sort of a lazy way to read/watch such things. If the author is being that lazy, okay, but they aren't necessarily, and assuming they are is just as lazy on the reader's part.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Well, the thing is, what I was mostly reacting to here is Martel, and the idea that he just needs to choose the right animal for the right reasons to represent Jewish people - I probably shouldn't have gone on with him dragging Maus into it, and you are right that I should read it before assuming what it's doing (but should I read Martel before assuming what he is doing? or just rely on his interviews?).

But for me, the real issue I have with the way Maus is cast is I hate that people think cats are evil, and I hate that they've been typecast as evil. And I'm not sure how to like... point to that stereotype and overcome it? So... I guess it raises my ire in that sense, but I'm not sure what the real issue therein is, other than the way our culture has coded common domestic animals. But you're right that it is a kneejerk reaction on my part. I think that my sensitivity to the cat thing has expanded over the years to include other anthropomorphizing - whereas I'm sure that Sexton (and most people) are coming at it from the angle of not wanting human ethnic groups to be represented by animals according to traits. And I honestly think that's a different issue.

You mean what we should do is look at our own stereotypes before condemning other people's stereotypes? Because see, I don't have a stereotype in this regard. Other than I don't think cats are evil. I don't really... stereotype animals in general. And I guess it saddens/angers me when people do. I've gotten to the point where I just avoid things that do it, which is probably bad.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I, uh, don't think most people think that cats are evil, and I really don't get your issue there. But it's a pretty natural choice if you're looking for something that exterminates mice. I don't think it's going on anything but that.

No, I think that people should go on something that challenges their current worldview rather than affirming it.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I suppose you could choose owls instead. They kill a lot of mice. But I don't really think that's any better, except that it's a little less what owls get stereotyped as in Western cultures, I guess.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I'm really just not concerned about animal stereotypes, except insofar as "cute and fuzzy" animals get treated better (or sometimes bought and then dumped later on when people can't take care of them in greater numbers) than others, which is stupid.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Okay, prepare for a lot of emotional irrationality here. Just to warn you.

I want to point out that a lot of things eat mice. Even wolves eat mice. I am pretty positive that dogs eat mice. But yeah, I'm sure he is just starting with hey, they called Jews vermin, so I'll follow that and make cats Nazis. But I feel like given the way people read Nazis (as the ultimate evil incarnate blah blah... something I don't agree with, but something I know people think), making an entire species of animal represent something that weighty... bothers me. I think if he did, you know, the whole thing with various types of birds or lizards or something I wouldn't have this reaction, because nobody thinks, "oh yeah, goddamn sparrows, I fucking hate those bastards, they probably ARE Nazis." But I guess I feel that there are people that would think that about cats. I'm not sure if there is any animal that is as easily coded as evil in Western culture as a cat. Maybe like... a hyena? Yeah, maybe a hyena/jackal type thing. But that's not exactly common. I guess people see snakes as evil too, for Biblical reasons, although it is rare for a snake to come up in pop culture. Unless it's Britney Spears dancing with one.

I mean, they say it semi-jokingly, but I have heard a lot of people say "cats are evil," and there are so many movies where cats are treated like shit that can get chainsawed in half (whereas when a dog dies, it's typically a noble death a la I Am Legend, or something that is meant to really elicit emotion because the Dog Was Such a Good Guy). So that's why I think it's taking a shortcut to "good" and "evil," and why I think it's lazy. Partly because I really do feel that's how cats are coded in Western culture, and hell, if you want to challenge stereotypes, make your Nazis penguins. Nobody thinks penguins are evil. And once again, I do get that he's coming from the starting point of the Jews = vermin thing. But I fear that the end result is yet another example of cats being evil bastards that should be drowned.

This is a pretty crazy reaction on my part, I know. But I once wrote a story dedicated to the cats that were burned with the witches in Salem (and as I recall I wanted the Church to like... apologize for killing cats?). So... yeah.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Also, at least with Martel's interviews, you're actually reacting to what Martel himself has said about (even better) why he chose to represent Jews as he did. It's probably a safe bet that you're not going to get that much more out of...whatever he created. If you were just going on the representation as monkeys or donkeys, that would be different. I, for one, would be like "What the fuck? Monkeys?"

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Aside from all of that, there's a huge difference between me having a kneejerk reaction to something and me congratulating myself on my moral superiority on some issue. At least I think there is. The kneejerk thing I will cop to - I originally was going to title this post something about literary pet peeves, because that's basically what it is (well, with more emotion than is maybe normal).

But I really don't want to come across as being all holier-than-thou and judgmental and all of this stuff that you frequently read me as being. I mean, if there's something in my wording of the post that implies that - and maybe what I see as just being critical of a device comes across as self-congratulation, in which case, I need to work on that - could you let me know, so I know not to do it in the future? I feel like you very often get this vibe from me and self-righteousness is really not a big part of how I react to things. I'm way more likely to get emotional and angry than to be all "I am up here, and you are down here."

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Hm, interesting. I'll definitely think about it (which is probably more productive than me being put off or just ignoring it anyway). My first guess is that it has something to do with sarcasm and/or ridicule. Ridicule usually condemns--and puts out of the sphere of argument--a point far better than arguing against it and therefore respecting and taking it seriously as an argument. Maybe sometimes ridicule is warranted, but I think one should be careful. And it's the not even taking it seriously as an argument part that seems, I guess, "I am up here, and you are down here." That's my initial impression about why I respond that way, at least.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I'm also not the first to make that (or a similar) point about ridicule, fwiw. I know Nietzsche and DFW have, and who knows who else.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

So in this case, "the argument" being the use of animals to symbolize ethnic groups? And that's what I don't seem to be taking seriously? I mean, just to be clear on what exactly I seem to be condemning and not respecting.

I feel like I write more in anger than ridicule, is the thing. Anger on the behalf of animals (and I kind of wonder about how sane that is), but anger just the same. And that's probably why it comes across that I'm not even going to allow for the possibility that it could be done ok. I think that I should probably be careful about using sweeping generalizations and hyperbole - I guess I'm used to reading that, and assuming that everyone writes that way on the internet. And I think it's also a problem of very short posts. In any case, I will work on that.

TBH I still don't see it as ridicule because it feels more like "this angers me so much I can't even talk about it," not... "ha ha you are so stupid and I will laugh at you." But maybe that's just how I read it, and in any case, it still means I'm not taking it seriously as a... literary device. I don't know, I really am not a fan of ridicule and I'd rather be an irrational angry person than someone who ridicules.