Nathalie asked, in first reader post:

Respondents: What do you think of the present tense action? Is it necessary? What are some other reasons he might have structured the story with flashbacks intermingled with the present? … What do you think of the usage of dialect? Is Vladek the only one to speak in accented English? Is it effective? Confusing? Offensive?

———————————————————————————————————————————————

I agree that the present time action in Maus is a effective in breaking up the war-time story line. I felt like it kind of brought me back to my senses after reading (and seeing) the startling account of Vladek and Anja’s experiences. I do think that this integration of present time panels is necessary in adding depth to the novel. Spieglman certainly could have made it a strictly 1930s-40s timeline, but the infusion of his experience with his elderly father not only let us know more about the author himself, but most importantly (I think) it gives us depth into Vladek’s character hand how the war effected him for the rest of his life. Through those present time panels, we see how conscious Vladek is of his health, and how frugal he has become. Of course, seeing his experience in the Holocaust explains exactly why.

I enjoyed reading Vladek’s accented dialect. Like someone mentioned in class, after sitting and reading the first book straight through in one sitting,  I couldn’t stop thinking in this inverted accent. It reminded me of my own grandfather (another Polish Jew). I found it very effective; I think it gave Vladek all the more personality. It made him real, gave him roots (which I think is a little more difficult in this particular novel, since there was no longer descriptive passages telling us about Vladek’s history). We hear the story pretty much only through Vladek’s voice and for me,  his accent made it all the more believable and true to life.