The Last Page of Maus

In class I was suprised when we didn't really discuss the last page of the comic, as the last page of most literary works are very important in the context of the whole story. I thought this blog post would be a good opportunity to share my thoughts on the last page.


The ending of Maus fails to give closure, leaving numerous questions unanswered. The reason why Vladek calls Art Richieu is unknown and has many reasonable explanations. It could mean that Art hasn't lived up to the expectations that Richieu had left when he died, or that Vladek actually begins to accept Art as a son by allowing him to replace Richieu in his life. Alternatively, it could also mean that Vladek hasn't escaped the past and is still actively living in it. Or, most simply, it could just be a slip of tongue and indicate Vladek's advanced age and the memory loss he underwent.

The gravestone at the bottom of the page has the same effect. While it literally splits the last two panels, it also seems to wrap the whole story together, putting Vladek's and Anja's name next to each other, indicating that the couple "lived happy, happy ever after" (136). However, the conditions of death for both Vladek and Anja would seem to indicate an unhappy ending instead. This, perhaps, may be sending the message that the Holocaust never will have a "happy ending". Still, the tombstone adds to the confusion and lack of clarity presented by the last page.

The signature at the bottom of the page is a last word of sorts for Art Spiegelman. The fact that it is Art's signature rather than Vladek's implys that the story is now Art's, not Vladek's. Art has taken over the responsibility of the story and thus carries the guilt that comes with it. Alternatively, writing the story could also be a channel for Art to release his guilt, a catharsis of sorts. Even more, the date at next to Art's signature is 13 years, the age when a Jewish child to becomes a man. This suggests that Art finally became a man after writing the comic, as if writing this book ushered in a new and better age for Art.

The last page of Maus truly lacks the closure that so many other novels contain. Overall, the lack of closure suggests that, like this comic, the true stories of the Holocaust lack closure - nothing good came out of the Holocaust. The rare good from the Holocaust, under closer investigation, must have a larger negative that outweighs the positive.

Memory

Many novels have various themes relating to memory and Maus and 1984 are two of them. In both novels, however, memory is represented in different ways, most notably as an abstract concept in 1984 and a concrete item in Maus. This difference allows each novel to fufill a different purpose. The fact that Winston Smith wasn't aware "Where that knowledge existed" (Orwell, 18) mirrors Orwell's warning to the public about technology: although technology didn't at that time allow for such propaganda to influence the public, it could quickly become possible. By reinforcing the idea that memory is actually abstract, Orwell convincingly conveys the message that the minds of humans are easily malleable by abstract methods.

Memory in Maus serves a different purpose. In Maus, memory is most often shown as concrete, taking the form of photos, numbers, and even the comic itself. The concreteness of memory in Maus, opposite to 1984, acts to create verisimilitude in order to emphasis the very real physical and emotional after effects of the Holocaust. When memory is displayed in the form of physical objects such as pictures, these memories are permanent, unable to be easily wiped from the mind. Vladek, for some reason, has a photo of himself in a prisoner suit "still now in my desk" (Spiegelman, 2.134). The physical picture acts as a stimulant to Vladek's memory, constantly reminding him of his trauma. In the same way, Maus is a constant reminder to the guilt Art feels due to the Holocaust.

In both novels, however, memory acts as a primary motavator for Winston Smith, Vladek, and Art. In 1984, Winston Smith's primarily goal is to restore proper memory to his people. In Maus, Art writes his comic to come to terms with his guilt by invoking his father's memory. Vladek's entire life revolves around his memory and trauma aquired from the holocaust. His memory forces him to be exceedingly miserly, eventually pulling him apart from his wife. Despite the difference in purpose, memory acts as a driving force behind both Maus and 1984's characters.

What is Feminism?

Feminists are criticized for various reasons including self-entitlement, anti-male attitudes, and general snobbishness. Whether these stereotypes are true or not, many feminists maintain that those who attack feminism simply don't understand what feminism is about - and this is true. To the average person who is neither a feminist nor anti-feminist, feminism doesn't seem to have a clear goal. The movement lacks true organization and seems to be a loosely connected group of people that fight for various causes under the name "feminism". This is almost directly opposite from the successful Black Lives Matter movement and Gay Rights movement, both of which had clear goals that all supporters rallied around. 

An example of such confusion even comes from two feminist authors whose pieces we've read in class. Stanton, in a 1869 woman suffrage convention in Washington, DC, says "The male element is a destructive force, stern, selfish, aggrandizing, loving war, violence, conquest, acquisition, breeding...death". This, however, is completely contradictory to what Bell Hooks writes, saying "folks think feminism is anti-male. Their misunderstanding of feminist politics..." The foundation of feminism isn't even clear to two promininent feminists. How can a movement be successful when its proponents arean't even sure of what they're fighting for? A movement like this can be compared to a bad essay, one that Ms. Valentino has surely graded. Even through the first month of this school year, Valentino has stressed the importance of a strong claim. Simply put, a claim must be clear, concise, and debatable. The goals of the feminism movement are not any of these three.

Furthermore, the goals of feminism are so muddled that Bell Hooks herself contradicts herself in her own essay. Starting her essay with "feminism is a movement to end sexism" she later writes "women could not band together to furthur feminism". As innocent as this mistake seems, Hooks implies that feminism is a movement for women only, going against her initial claim. Such small discrepancies and the lack of a clear focus causes feminism to be viewed by many as a joke, even though parts of what it stands for are clearly positive.

Individualism vs. Collectivism

Henry Thoreau in "Civil Disobedience" repeatedly stresses the importance of individualism and how individual sovereignty will allow the machine of government to run frictionlessly. Thoreau writes that the basis of America is founded on individualism - those who practiced different religions made the decision to move to new land. It seems logical that the power of the individual moved pioneers across the Atlantic. This, however, is not entirely true; it was, instead a violation of the social contract that forced people to move. The social contract clearly states that when a government misuses its power the people are forced to either replace it or overthrow it. When England prosecuted individuals based off their religious background, the people decided to replace the corrupt government by creating their own in America. As the social contract is heavily based off of popular sovereignty, the direct opposite of individual sovereignty, the power of the individual is not the foundation on which America stands on. Rather, the social contract acts as the foundation of the United States, as it does for most other countries. Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence was largely based on popular sovereignty and the social contract:

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

Jefferson believed that the people's majority is the central ruling power of the government. The government acts as a servant to the people, and when the government begins to override the people's wishes, it is the people's duty to replace the government. Unlike individual sovereignty, popular sovereignty truly gives power to the people, allowing for a government that is both powerful yet malleable.