To answer the question about whether or not we think Vladek’s recollection is framed by his own bias or if he is the way he is because of traumatic experiences, I would agree that yes, both situations apply. Everyone always has a bias and a subjective perspective when recollecting something from memory. If you put 99 people in a room to observe the same thing, you’re going to get 99 different perspectives about what was observed. This isn’t to say that someone’s perspective and recollection is more or less true than the other, its just fragments of the truth, but nevertheless, contains truth. I actually found myself asking the same question as I was reading Maus. I was very moved and compelled by the story as I was reading it, but I couldn’t help but ask myself at times, “Is this really the way it happened? Could it be possible that this is just one man’s subjective perspective on the way things were? Wouldn’t someone else who was there say different, even opposing things?” This is, of course, is my attempt to approach this from an “objective, literary” angle. Well, I think the obvious answer would be yes, things really happened this way, and yes, if you ask someone else who was there with Vladek, they might say something completely different. We know the Holocaust was real, and we know, or trust rather, that Vladek was really there as well. There might be some things missing or inaccurate about his story because of his bias in perspective, but we know the general construct of his story to be true. I think this is the interesting about making Vladek’s story into a comic book. Comics only show fragments of what is going on, not the whole “truth” if you will. But we know the general, overall story to be true. In the case of Vladek’s story, despite missing pieces, we are given much reason to believe, based off what we already know in history, that his overall story is true. The interesting thing about Maus is that Vladek is our only source of knowing, everyone else, such as Art’s mother, has passed. Much remains in ambiguity because there are stories and perspectives we will never hear.

I would definitely say though that Vladek’s behavior is a result of traumatic experiences of his past. I mean, he has had to endure some of the worst experiences known to man, the holocaust and his wife committing suicide. If you observe Vladek’s behavior, it is pretty clear that he acts this way as a result of his past. In volume 1, Art notes that Vladek always got mad at him for a kid for not eating all the food on his plate. Also, the fact that Vladek has saved so much stuff, and refuses to spend money on what he sees as unnecessary things. I would assume these are symptoms of being a holocaust survivor, as at that point, even the most basic resources were hard to come by. It does not surprise me that Vladek acts in such a way. So in conclusion, yes, I agree that both apply to Vladek and his perspective.