What Would You Do ?

            Page 86 of the second part of Art Spiegelman’s Maus shows the difficulty of representing such horrific history in the form of a book, especially a graphic novel. In this scene, Art’s father, Vladek, and the rest of the prisoners of the concentration camp are packed so tightly into a train suitable for farm animals that there is barely enough room to breathe. Vladek, noticing hooks hanging from the ceiling, used a blanket he had managed to keep to form a make-shift hammock. It is on this hammock where he sat above the rest of the Holocaust victims from his camp as most of the people died. While smart and resourceful in terms of survival skills, this scene complicates and calls into question the character of Vladek.

 

            The problem Art Spiegelman encounters when representing this scene is the potential blemishing of the characters of those who initially gain the reader’s sympathies. There is no question that the Hitler regime was the, to put it simply, villainous force during the Holocaust. However, Spiegelman’s problematic representation of, specifically, his father during this scene on the train raises the extremely uncomfortable question of was Vladek purely a victim or what he, too, a villain? Vladek recounts the entire horrific story in a manner that seems inappropriate for the topic. He maintains his composed, matter-of-fact tone as he tells the story of human beings screaming, begging and pleading for their lives in the form of the snow to which Vladek is the only one who has access. This resource was the determining factor of whether the passengers would live or die. The images and visual rhetoric capture the pure agony and desperation on the faces of the victims as they throw their heads back with their mouths gaping, begging for their lives. Their anguish is juxtaposed to Vladek’s spacious chair-like formation where he sits hunches over, looking much more content. Based on the image drawn by Art, there appears to be no real shortage of snow. However, the only instance in which Vladek shared the renewable resource is when he traded it for sugar. The last sentence on that page is from Vladek and it reads, “So I ate also sugar and saved their life.” By acknowledging the fact that he possessed the power to save lives, but would only do so if there was something to trade, Vladek demonstrates severe selfishness and, possible, even strong apathy regarding the lives of others. By equating eating sugar with saving someone’s life, Vladek seriously trivializes the concepts of life and death. It also raises the question how many more people would have lived if Vladek would have shared some snow? This question causes significant problems for the fact that some deaths could then, potentially, be connected to Vladek.

            This depiction of Vladek as less than heroic significantly blurs the line between good and evil. Though the reader is, at first, supposed to sympathize with Vladek for being victimized under the Nazi regime, his morally questionable survival tactics confuse the reader and cause hesitation when labeling Vladek as completely innocent. Art Spiegelman’s potentially problematic representation of this scene could depict the Jews forced to make similar decisions in a particularly negative light. Though it goes without saying that the Jews tortured in the Holocaust are not to blame for any of the horrific occurrences, the survival tactics used inevitably question the clarity of the line between good and evil.

            This unclear distinction between good and evil also causes the reader to look critically at the situation and contemplate what their own choice would be; do you share the snow or keep it for yourself? While everyone would like to think of themselves as morally sound individuals, it is impossible to be certain what one would do in the given situation until actually faced with the dilemma. It is easy to say you would do anything to save someone’s life until the circumstances actually arise.

            This problem Art faces when representing this scene portrays his father in an unflattering light. This same critical portrayal could possibly span to the survivors who used similar techniques in order to endure the Holocaust, calling into question the lines between good and evil, innocent and guilty. These blurred lines cause severe discomfort in the readers when they inevitably must reflect on what their own choice would be. Maybe it’s possible that no matter the format or perspective of the story, there will always be problems when trying to depict something as unimaginable and horrific as the Holocaust.