All of My Family is Dead. No Big Dill.

On page 116 of Maus II, by Art Spiegelman, Art is asks about the whereabouts of Vladek's family after hearing about his mother's. This page contains a mixture of "moment-to-moment" transitions when Art is positioning himself more comfortably on his father's couch to listen to his father's story and a section of "aspect-to-aspect" transitions on the left side of the page which focuses on different parts of Vladek sitting down and breaking him up into different panels. In this way, it "sets a wandering eye on different aspects of a place, idea, or mood" (McCloud 72). By doing this, Spiegelman adds emphasis to his father's sorrow when he has to rethink about the family he has lost in the Holocaust for the sake of Art's book. Because Vladek is broken up into different panels with "gutters" in between, it seems as the choice to do so metaphorically represents the man the Holocaust created; a broken individual. This also applies to all of the victims of the Holocaust who have survived the tragedy but have lost their love ones. The only memories he has of his family are from his own recollection which may also be why the remaining pictures he has are scattered on the floor and are being given to Art. They mean nothing to him and only offer as a painful reminder of the people he lost.

Furthermore, when Spiegelman illustrates his course of action in the story in "moment-to-moment" transitions of getting comfortable on his father's couch, he somewhat critiques himself in a way that it seems like he is not particularly proud of being apathetic to what his father was feeling at the moment. This occurs throughout the story as he pesters his father for more information about his experiences during the Holocaust without acknowledging how painful is must be for Vladek to recall those memories. In showing himself in this light after his father's death, he is reflective of his actions and displays the shame in what he did by emphasizing Vladek's sorrow. This also may connect to the point that he writes in Maus I of his father and him not being close. His insensitivity and obsession in completing his story made him fail to realize that Vladek genuinely enjoyed his son's company and may have only relived his painful history in order to spend time with his son.

Time is an Illusion? How Dillightful.

I guess one way I can start this blogpost, but greatly anger my audience (hi, Ms. Smit), is to talk about how both novels The Things They Carried, by Tim O'Brien, and Maus, by Art Spiegelman, are both war stories. But to evade getting a zero, I will choose to write about how both novels play with time which I hope is a little more profound. In effort of telling these war stories, both writers choose to interject the present within the act of relaying the past which is not usually done in other books that I've read. They typically tend to stick to one time period which is probably always the go-to method when writing a novel. The clashes between time periods, however, seem to add complexity to the novel's plot and be more than just another war story. In Maus, Spiegelman begins his story with a brief anecdote of his childhood and then carries on to the beginning events of gathering his father's war story. In a way, the comic develops into a frametale. As the reader continues and learns about Vladek's experience in the Holocaust, he is exposed to Vladek of the past and present. This also occurs in The Things They Carried where the reader is living in Timmy's experiences and seeing how these events formed Tim who is brought in when the story shifts into the present. Both characters are obviously afflicted from the war with their similarities of an inability to be truly content and habits formed from the war (Tim O'Brien evidently carries a detached tone throughout the novel and Vladek refuses to throw things away which may stem from him having to be resourceful in the war). These effects are greatly enhanced with the juxtaposition of time and also offers the narrator to inject their own personal feelings about their history and layers two stories into one which is, in a way, interesting. (it's especially interesting in Maus with the cliffhanger of Art calling his father a murderer in anger of him destroying Anja's journals, a great resource for different viewpoints of the Holocaust).

You Mean a REALLY Great Dill to Me

In Game of Thrones, Brienne of Tarth, cold due to the rejection and scorn she has experienced throughout her life (mostly due to her lack in a "feminine" appearance in Westerosi standards) she is tasked with keeping Jaime Lannister alive and bring him to his punishment. During this time, he shows her genuine kindness which is usual for the poor, alienated Brienne. It is in these moments where her  extreme loyalty begins to bud for Sir Jaime Lannister. For those who are unaware, her loyalty is sworn upon her life. Later on, when given the chance to prove her loyalty to someone else by slaying Jaime... I will stop here to evade any spoilers. This is likewise to the relationship between Antonio and Sebastian in Acts 3 and 4 in Twelfth Night, a play written by Shakespeare. During these acts, Antonio tells Sebastian that he cannot come into town due to his criminal reputation and if he happened to be found he would be jailed. Sensing something was wrong, Antonio makes and appearance to town to save Sebastian who happens to be Viola instead. By doing this, he is recognized and jailed for the trouble he has caused.

In both of the sitations, Brienne and Jaime, and Antonio and Sebastian, there has been a sort of unspoken love between the rescuer and victim, whether the relationship is heterosexual or homosexual.

Secretly, I've hoped for a romance between Brienne and Jaime because come on, look at how heartbreaking and sad it is when she has to leave him :(

You Mean A Great Dill to Me

In Aziz Ansari's Modern Romance, it was quite interesting to see how love has revolutionized throughout time. He pointed out that many seniors in the rest home he visited ended up marrying an individual who was close to home which might not be the case now. With the advancement of educational opportunities, the sea where many fish are to be found, has expanded tremendously. We have all throughout our educational lives to find "the one" because 1. education is heavily stressed upon over family (arguably, that is) 2. women have the equal opportunity education which alleviates the pressure of their future depending on a man (independence, YAAAAS). Khaleesi being forced into marriage to Khal Drogo is a perfect example of society's use of courtship in the past to what it has revolutionized to now (she did, however, eventually fall in love with the dude)
On the other hand, it is also interesting to see that in this wider sea of suitors to pick from we have consequently become more "cold" and impersonal in our habits of confessing our love to someone. As Americans, we're know to be appear "cold" in human interactions especially in the way we greet each other* but it is significant that this "coldness" is appearing in all parts of the world with the initiation of romance through technology. Throughout my middle school days and early freshman year I fantasized about being swept off my feet from a boy who makes admiring looks from afar to the point where the looks weren't satisfying enough and eventually worked up the guts to ask me out. Well, that didn't happen. My first relationship was initiated on Facebook messenger and Snapchat. Maybe I dwell too much on the past and its chivalrous outlook on love, but I personally don't care for the idea of it being commonly acceptable to initiate and end a relationship through text or and other mode that is isn't personal. In the past, lovers used letters or their mode of communication and boy, were they troopers. Does that mean that the equivalent of sending a text to someone is actually having to send a crow in Game of Thrones? How inconvenient.

*in countries of Hispanic influence it is customary to greet someone warmly with a kiss on the cheek