Swallow me whole

When I started reading the first few pages, I had no idea what was going on. As I thought about it, I realize that may be the point; Ruth and Perry may not have been able to make sense of their earlier memories and hallucinations. I feel like my confusion was a reflection of theirs and was intentional.

As I continued reading, I started to at least understand the plot and the characters. I really like a lot of the random, unique parts of the book that weren’t necessary part of the story, like the small illegible writing, the representation of darkness, and the things filling the gutters. It was very captivating.

I agree with the person who said it was the most engrossing novel so far, I really enjoyed it. It kept me interested and the visual aspect was very appealing.

Museum

So I found this link to a really crappy 90’s website. If you were on the internet in the 90’s you’ll know what I’m talking about:  http://www.nmajh.org/exhibitions/maus/index.htm

Apparently there was a Maus exhibit at the National Museum of American Jewish History. I really wonder what the exhibit had in it; all I can imagine is enlarged print-outs of the pages. I just thought it was interesting.

Rebellions are Violent?

So the most prominent thing that stands out to me is the violence in the book. I feel kind of silly for not expecting violence in a book about a rebellion. Although as the preface says, we aren’t really given anything except for a sentence of two in history books about Nat’s rebellion; I didn’t know too much about it at all. The entire “Freedom” section was intense (and rightfully so). I felt like I was watching a movie, which was pretty awesome. I guess it evoked a strong emotional response from me; I wasn’t reading, I was watching.

Throughout the first few sections I found myself completely lost and thinking, “What’s going on” and “Wait, who is that? Is that one Nat?” I do believe that there’s an important reason for including the beginning stuff even if I’m not sure what the reason is. My guess is that you have to know where someone came from to know where they are going. And maybe we wouldn’t think the slaves’ actions during the rebellion would be justified if we didn’t know what they experienced to become slaves. Once again, slave hardships sometimes seem to be nonexistent in history books.

There’s one panel that’s just stuck in my head and it’s the one with the baby and the shark. I can guess why the events leading up to it occurred, but who caught the baby? Am I right to assume that the baby is Nat Turner? Am I the only one confused?