Talk:Maus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judaism Portal
Maus is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. See comments.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Mauscheln?

It says here

"Also the German verb 'mauscheln' (which visually includes the word 'Maus' - mouse) means originally 'to talk like a Jew"

I find this a little bit of a stretch, to say the least. That word has long come out of use, and as it doesn't bear any etymological connection to "Maus", it's hard to believe that it was on Spiegelman's mind (especially as I understand he doesn't speak any german). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.153.188 (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Does anyone know how to put a disambiguation panel at the top, to make clear that there is an entry about a tank after the one about the comic book?2toise 03:41, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Not a novel

The back cover of this book, identifies it as memoir/history. [1]. I am changing the article to reflect that. Merecat 22:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

From Graphic novel: ...and even non-fiction are stocked by libraries and bookstores as "graphic novels" (similar to the manner in which dramatic stories are included in "comic" books). Yes, it's not a novel but neither are many works (Joe Sacco's reportage for example). Graphic novel refers to the form rather than the genre. We have the marketing people of the late 80's to thank for this. Maus is not a novel but it is a Graphic Novel. Peteashton 02:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot?

Is "Plot" the best word to use here? "Story" seems better to me, if only because it is a memoir, albeit a rather unconventional one. Thoughts?--Sean Black (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree - it's a story, not a plot.

Merecat 23:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My revert

I just rollbacked some edits when I meant only to revert. My apologies. The reason I returned to the previous version is that I felt it was clearer and I preferred the writing. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional Mouse and Rats???

i question categoring maus in "fictional mouse and rats". its supposed to be a memoir of Art Spiegelman Father. So why put under that?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.106.17.206 (talk • contribs) .

I actually agree with removing it but I can see why someone would put it in that category. I'll wait for other opinions before deleting. Pascal.Tesson 03:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree with removing it. It's not exactly fiction, and it's not exactly about mice - they're just a graphical metaphor. Like Pascal.Tesson, though, I can see why someone would put it in that category, if they'd just scanned the article. Gamesmaster 18:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more with all the above. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 21:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

British soldiers driving a jeep are portrayed as fish in the bottom left panel on page 131 of vol. II. In the CD-ROM version, Art Spiegelman explains why he chose fish to represent the British on p. 266. Muffybaby 22:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)muffybaby

[edit] British as Fish?

The claim that British were portrayed as Fish has been inserted at least twice into the article, and twice reverted. It would be nice if we could get some confirmation. Maybe something about the page number on which they appear, or better yet a scan of the panel? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.238.177.61 (talk • contribs) .

I wasn't aware that the British were actually portrayed in the novel, and I've read it reasonably recently - it might be difficult to find a citation for the British as fish. Gamesmaster 15:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
ADDED: Yes, it's been done again. The IP address that does it each time keeps changing. I've been unable to lay my hands on a copy of Maus to check through it, so we can't disprove it: should we ask the most recent user to find a page number where the British are shown? Otherwise I'm going to remove it. Gamesmaster 18:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I've just browsed through the two volumes and I don't see any fish (or any British for that matter) whatsoever. I think that should be removed. I'm suspicious of the Swedes as deer as well, because I don't see Swedes or deer anywhere, but it's possible that I may have missed them in my cursory search. I can confirm that Jews as mice, Germans as cats, Americans as dogs, and French as frogs (except Spiegelman's French wife is a mouse) are correct. --JamesAM 22:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm planning to re-read Maus in the next few weeks so that I can solve these kinds of problems. In the meantime, I'm removing the british fish. Pascal.Tesson 22:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I have the two volume versions, and in volume II on pages 124 and 125 Swedes are represented as stags, and on page 131 bottom left panel fish are in a jeep flying the Union flag. I am thus replacing the British fish. Hiding Talk 22:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I guess this is why collaboration of the month works. :-) Pascal.Tesson 23:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for citing. Sorry I missed that. I'll confirm the Roma/Gypsy as gypsy moth on page 133 of vol. 2. --JamesAM 23:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Yup, thanks for looking it up. So it's all good. Gamesmaster 13:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Ya, the British and the Swedes are only found in Maus II AP Shinobi (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comics Collab

Since this is the current Comics Collaboration, I thought it might make sense to have a section on the talk page where people can point out what they've done to it, and we can discuss what needs to be done with this article specifically rather than just adding another section to the discussion on the Comics Wikiproject. I've just attempted to improve the "Animals Used" section, though I confess to still being a bit of a noob with Wikipedia and I don't think I did the links right. - Gamesmaster 16:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I second that idea. As a start, I have rewritten the Overview section. Still not happy with it but it's hopefully a bit more readable. Among the things that need to be added, I think that there absolutely has to be some discussion on the impact that Maus had, its influence in American comics and comics worldwide (how many different translations?). As far as organisation, I think it's good to include in the overview section the fact that the whole thing is black and white and makes extensive use of anthropomorphism. I'm not sure there's a point to the Themes section but there should be a plot section (although that's not really an appropriate term). The Animals Use section I think has too many bullets and can someone explain to me the "deer suggest rendeer" line? I guess I'm done with my rants! Pascal.Tesson 03:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
There's no citation for the reindeer bit, since Spiegelmann never (as far as I can find) mentions his choices for every single animal. I found the discussion on cats and mice from one of the links, so that's not original research, and the French bit is almost exactly what he says in the comics themselves. To be fair, though, the other descriptions of allegory aren't really taken from anywhere: they just seemed obvious to me from reading the novel a few times, and so I suppose they probably do violate the No Original Research policy. Gamesmaster 09:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
My point was just that the "deer suggest reindeer" sounds to me like "deer suggest deer". Pascal.Tesson 18:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
You could be right. I'll remove it. Gamesmaster 18:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awards

I've added quite recently a short list of awards Art Spiegelman has received, including the ones for Maus (part I or II or combined). Would it be allright if I included those for Maus here as well, or is it a bit overkill? It's probably not complete either, but that's a different problem.

I personally think it's relevant. Gamesmaster 15:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Influences

We have a section on the animals used and the reason some animal is chosen, but I wonder if we need a paragraph or so about predecessors / possible influences. I'm referring especially to the French classic La Bête est Morte by Edmond-François Calvo from 1944-1945. It's a story about WWII where every party is portrayed (portretted?) by a different species. Sounds familiar? Another influence may have been Blitz Wolf by Tex Avery. Not for the uses of animals, but a general influence / predecessor may have been Master Race by Al Ferstein and Bernie Kriegstein (See this French 10 page pdf for more info). Of course, this shouldn't be OR, so I have looked for some more sources, like this one or this French one. Don't know if its enough to warrant inclusion in some form, but I thought I started a discussion about it here...

An interesting idea - but I think it has the danger of straying into OR (although admittedly parts of the Animals Used section are guilty of the same crime). Perhaps if enough sources were found, we could do something along the lines of "Possible Influences?" Gamesmaster 15:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
i think a "see also" section with links would be fine, cites or no; it's not OR to point out predecessors or similar works. but if you wanted to talk about influences, that woudl definitely need to be sourced. --dan 23:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awards citations

Ive added an awards section as requested as the wikiproj talk page.

I had some problems sourcing some of the awards. I briefly used some wiki pages as citations, where I could not find others, however after thinking about it for a second I realised that thats probably not allowed, so Ive removed them. Also my source of the National Book Critics Circle Award nomination info ([2]) does not seem to be working as a wikilink (though In can still find it and open the page on Google, see the top link at [3]) so Ive removed that as well. Im confident that those facts are reliable, but Im afraid I have not been able to find better citations. Hueysheridan 18:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Query

"Deer may also suggest an essence of neutrality."

Why? Iron Ghost 23:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No idea... it showed up on my watchlist as an anonymous user. Anyway, isn't it the Swiss who were neutral in WW2? The Scandinavian nations fought pretty fiercely against Germany if I recall correctly... Gamesmaster 10:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Sweden was neutral during WWII, see Sweden during World War II. κаллэмакс 11:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
And Finland actually fought pretty fiercely against the Soviet Union. RCS 13:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand that Sweden was neutral, but why do reindeer suggest neutrality? Iron Ghost 18:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


Seeing as deer are commonly seen as graceful, peaceful creatures, it makes sense that one could draw connections between the habits of a deer and an "essence of neutrality."

Reekie 22:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impact of Maus

I'm in the middle of looking up sources for opinions of Maus and its impact in the comic book world. Hopefully I'll have several sources to cite soon.--Undertow87 02:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I finally added this section, although I wasn't sure how much I could add before sounding redundant. Finding essays or reviews slamming Maus has been difficult, so if anyone has any links, please add them. I'll add more when and if I think of anything else to add.--Undertow87 01:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Umm people, please!

I typed in 'Maus' in the search box on the left to find the article on 'Die Sendung mit der Maus', a children's program I used to be very fond of in my early youth and which I watched all the time when I was a kid. When entering 'Maus' however, I find myself instantly being directed to an article about the story of a survivor of the Nazi's and their deathcamps. I am not kidding when I say I find this really screwed up and a little shocking considering I was looking for an article about a children's television show. Can someone with enough knowledge on Wikipedia please make it so that when you enter 'Maus' in the searchbox, you are instantly transferred to the 'Maus (disambiguation)' page instead? Please. The sooner the better. 80.200.215.188 10:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What is so shocking about it? "Maus" is the title of the (very, very famous) comic, "Die Sendung mit der Maus" is the title of a mush less famous (in English speaking countries) TV show. A huge majority of people that type in Maus will be looking for the comic: for the others, the first thing they read is that for other uses, they should click at the top of the article. The article on Maus is not shocking, disturbing, sensationalist, ... but an acuurate description of the comic, its creation and its impact. While this is obviously not what you expected, it is no big deal. There is nothing in the article that a child should not see. I really don't see the problem with the current situation, and while it would be possible to change it to your preferred situation, I don't think it would be correct, and I would oppose such a move. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, discussing pleasant and unpleasant alike. Fram 10:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I have to say that I rather deplore the kind of reasoning you are presenting here. By having the keyword 'Maus' transfer users directly to the disambiguation page, nothing will be taken away even in the slightest from Wikipedia's mission to discuss both the 'pleasant and unpleasant' alike. In fact, I do not believe that I ever said anything to suggest otherwise either, in contrast to what you apparently are insinuating. As for the 'very, very famous' comic of Maus, I've frankly never even heard of it even though I am no stranger to the subject of World War II. Lastly, your comments on how the majority of people who enter the word of 'Maus' in the searchbox will supposedly be primarily looking for this comic seem rather speculative at best, and even more importantly, they speak of a biased perspective, something which seems further substantiated by your defensive attitude toward this article even though I in no way 'assaulted' nor the article, nor its content in itself. But obviously none of this really discusses the point at hand. The point is that under the current state of affairs, people who search for any of the other related 'Maus' subjects are basically getting an article about, as you yourself admitted, unrequested and unpleasant content rammed down their throats for no other reason than that an apparent enthusiast of this comic wants to proliferate its name and content to the best of his or her abilities. That is not what Wikipedia is for, and furthermore, when there are numerous articles a single keyword refers to, and one of those articles has content about a sensitive topic while also having a parallel article which covers a children's program, then there simply is no logical or rational reason why the keyword search results shouldn't directly refer to the disambuigation page instead, in order to avoid exactly this kind of dispute you and I are having now. Especially when you realise that ultimately nothing is really lost by doing this either. How you have come to believe that a simple request to have the disambiguation page link directly to a search result is akin to an act of censorship is totally beyond me.
As it is, the case you made above to remain status quo would only have validity if I were arguing that any of the other 'Maus' articles should be directly linked to over this one. I am not requesting anything even like that. I am asking for the disambuigation page instead, which is a completely neutral and reasonable request in light of the background I've shown in the previous paragraph. Again, someone please fix this. The sooner the better. 80.200.4.228 07:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
You are no stranger to the subject of WWII but have never heard of the Pulitzer Prize winning "Maus" (the only comic ever to get a Pulitzer Prize)? Then you should consider yourself lucky that your search for some TV series has brought you to this article about a subject that must certainly interest you... I strongly object to the reasons you attribute to me for keeping Maus as the main article when you search for Maus ("no other reason than that an apparent enthousiast...") The current situation was not created by me, I only came here to explain to you why it is so and why, IMO, it should stay so. Google searching Maus + Spiegelman (i.e. this article) gives 535,000 hits, Googling "Die Sendung mit der Maus" gives 363,000. Not a huge difference, but then again, there are a few other things to consider. "Maus" is the correct title of the comic, only part of the title of the TV series. Maus was originally made in English, Die Sendung in German (which means that looking for Maus on German Wikipedia may give different results). In fact, when looking for pages about "Die Sendung mit der Maus" written in English, I only get 722 Google Hits. Maus + Spiegelman gets 330,000 Google Hits for pages writen in English. So on an English language Wikipedia, it is logical to go to the well-known article directly, and only give a link to the almost unknown indirectly, unless you give in the correct name to start with. Finally, it is standard practice on Wikipedia to point a search term directly to the most famous item with that name. Looking for "Paris" gets you immediately the city Paris (in France), not the disambiguation page, even though I may well have been looking for the adventures of Paris Hilton, for the Greek hero, or for Paris, Texas. Hey look, even that last one gets you to the city, and not to the movie! So in short: it is normal practice on Wikipedia that a search word gets you straight to the article about the (in English language) most famous subject with that name (certainly when it is the exact same term). I'm sorry that you didn't know this comic, don't believe it is very famous, and find it shocking that you get the article for this comic when you are looking for a German TV series that is hardly known in English language speaking countries and that has a different complete title, but I'm not sorry enough by far to make any changes to the current situation. You can always post your problem at Wikipedia:Third opinion or Wikipedia:Requests for comment if you want more input about it of course. Fram 07:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The article already has a disambiguation header ("For other uses...") In English, "Maus" refers to the graphic novel, not the very last word of a German cartoon. If some one finds the wrong article, they can use the disambiguation page (at the top) or use what the "Search" button instead of the "Go" button. "Maus" is not such a substantial part of the cartoon's title that I consider your mistake to be likely to be repeated. Most people who look for that cartoon will type in the title. Besides, people should not be afraid of the unpleasant in life. - BalthCat 01:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
good grief, all of you! i agree that it's a fairly silly request, but what's the big deal? there are people who are upset by any mention of the holocaust, and directing to a disambiguation page is not a tragedy. i agree, the majority of maus searchers will be looking for the comic, and hey on that disambiguation page they will find it. or they can just look on the search page (personally, i think that Go button is a bad idea generally). --dan 23:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that Maus isn't the only comic to have won the Pulitzer Prize. Doonesbury won it back in the '70s. Just sayin'. —67.101.2.250 (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] life in Poland before and during the Second World War

During WWII Sosnowiec was in Reich, not exactly in Poland. Xx236 09:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When Did Art's Father Die?

I'm curious if Art Spigelman's father lived to see the publication of Maus, and if so, is there an interview to record his reaction? I just read Maus 1 for the first time and have requested the second through the library, so maybe my answer will come in that section.

This isn't neccesarily a suggestion for inclusion in the article, simlpy curioustiy on the part of a reader. -Tom

Vladek died in 1982, when Art had just started writing Volume 2. Volume 1 had been at least partly serialized in RAW, but not yet collected, I think (it'd be nice to have more about the publication chronology in our article). I don't think there's been anything in print about what Vladek thought of the book in progress. ←Hob 07:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it says something about it in Maus 1. :) WhatTheFace? 16:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The date is August 18th, 1982. It is in the final panel of Maus II. vLaDsINgEr 20:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Publisher info

Should the publishing info (publisher, dates) in the box at the top of the page reflect only the original publication of the book? After all, it is still being published and distributed, currently by Pantheon. The reason I ask is because the information seems to be unsure about which version it is talking about--citing the 1972 version and then "self-published" as the publisher (referring to the first printing of the version that is discussed in the article). --Krishva 18:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

In any case, even though Pantheon is owned by Random House, the publisher info "Pantheon, Random House" and the link to Random House was misleading, since "works continue to be published under these imprints with editorial independence" (Pantheon Books article). I just changed that. -- Martin de la Iglesia 15:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] metabiographical

I can't find "metabiographical" in the dictionary, which makes me doubt its an actual word. Even if it is, most people are not going to know what it means. There must be a better word to use than that.

[edit] MoMA show

Perhaps something on how it had a show at the Museum of Modern Art in NYC? 24.187.77.211 17:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Animals used' section original research

I've tagged the 'animals used' section with the original research flag. There are numerous issues that I see...

  • References used in the section include the transcript of a lecture by a professor (which has no weight unless that professor can be cited as an authority on the subject of the book), and a page which returns a 404 not found error. There are too few sources.
  • There are numerous cases of speculation about species-to-trait links without cited proof. That Jews are portrayed as mice can be derived from the work itself. Why they are portrayed that way must be cited by another source, like an interview with the author. Examples of what I'm talking about: "The Jews, as mice, can be seen as weak and helpless victims, as well as satirizing the Nazi portrayal of Jews as vermin." We need proof that this was Art Spiegelman's intention if it is going to be said on Wikipedia. The mice can be seen that way, but that may not be the author's intent, and as Wikipedia editors we cannot be the judges of that.
  • Other examples: "Spiegelman explained that he chose pigs in good faith because of their resemblance to famous American cartoon characters like Miss Piggy and Porky Pig." If this is true, we need a source that proves that he said this. "It seems to represent an exotic, mysterious personality that was and still is the common perception of the Romani people." As written, this is pure speculation; it even contains the word "seems".

If interpretations are made about why things were written in certain ways in the book, they must be cited. Preferrably, this would be done by quotation by the author himself, or they should in fairness be removed as original research. Skybunny 22:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I was going to tag it myself. Yes- if it can't be cited, it should be removed. Badgerpatrol 05:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

How about instead of being lazy and slapping a tag on stuff you go through the links and find cites? It took me five minutes to find citable references for this section. Suggesting removing it without even lifting a finger to fix it is even more contemptible.pschemp | talk 19:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you can also find something to prove the connection to Carl Barks, which I just removed because it's not convincing at all. --Martin de la Iglesia (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you describing my behaviour as "contemptible" pschemp? Badgerpatrol (talk) 12:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the interpretations and suggestions on the nation/animal pairings should be completely left out. These are readers' interpretations and could mean so many other things. For example I had totally different feelings about why Americans are dogs, Germans are cats, Pols are pigs, etc. Why don't we leave this to the reader's imagination? If Spiegelman himself gives clues that's OK, but in any other case I would rather stick to the facts. Zoli79 (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Story

I'm moving this to my page so I can make a better version of it. chow. Benny Lava —Preceding comment was added at 18:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Fish representing which nationality

The article currently has fish representing Japanese. It had been previously established that the fish represent the British (see talk above). Page 131 of Maus II indeed shows two fish driving a jeep, flying the British Union Jack. I am deleting. --Bridgecross (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some heavy edits

OK, I am deleting the entire 'story' section, which describes only the very first sequence of a two-volume graphic novel, and is irrelevant anyway. I'm also deleting the speculative work in the section about the animals. I have different speculations, but that's not the point. Wikipedia is not a blog. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)