Graphic Memoirs Come of Age

Is William Bradley challenging that Graphic Novels do not exist? Although he breaks down different types of novels, he constantly brings up the fact that it is actually a memoir. From what I understood from one of his arguments is that all graphic novels tell a deeper story. While discussing Spiegelman’s “graphic novel” he writes, “While this is certainly true, applying the label “graphic novel” to a work like Maus ignores the fact that it is not, strictly-speaking, a novel. It’s a memoir. Or a work of literary journalism. Or an extended essay. Or some combination of the three.” This leaves me to the assumption that graphic novels have a deeper underlying meaning to it than the comic itself by referring to them as “literary journalism”, “extended essays”, or a “memoir”.

While discussing Bechdel’s  struggle of writing her narrative he writes, ““You have too many strands,” her mother tells her—too much of what Joan Didion might call “shifting phantasmagoria.” This is, ultimately, every memoirist’s dilemma—life doesn’t really follow a narrative pattern. You have to decide what to cut, what to emphasize, and what really mat- ters—what you want your reader to understand about yourself and your experience.” This insists that her narrative is more than a narrative; it’s a memoir. Bechdel struggled with developing her story because of trying to follow a structure without realizing that there is a deeper importance to structuring her story, which is holding on to the important parts of her story.

So, is Bradley saying that graphic novels all have hold some type of personal accounts that weave in-between the context of the stories as the writer develops the novel?

Empowerment Through Mythical Imaginings

This reading was very easy to follow.  Johnston has clear structure. I found it interesting that instead of Kingston writing a direct memoir about her life in America from China, Johnston gives small summaries of the rest of the memoir and connects that the myth is used for the reader to understand Kingston's upbringing in China. With this connection, Kingston reflects on her roots and adapts to her life in America. Johnston writes, 

"By laying claim to her own language, her own voice, Kingston refuses the role of racial or sexual Other invents  herself as speaking subject. While dramatizing the movement from silence to articulation, she may appear to be moving away from her roots in the Chinese and Chinese-American tradition, moving toward and essentially American "logic" that seems a necessary part of her American success. " 

What I concluded from this point is that when we adapt to a new culture, is it mandatory to be able to switch off our roots? What I mean by that is, Kingston had to be flexible and hold on to her morals but she  had to put "American logic" first to be able to succeed. Although some may conclude that we don't have to or can't ignore our roots, if you are of a different culture, is this concept really "necessary" for success? 

American Indian Myths and Legends

I have to say as a poet I am enamored by the metaphors in the text and many of the quotes that were used. A line in the introduction states, “Mythical perception is always impregnated with these emotional qualities.” The introduction spoke of the universe and the power of these myths, which I feel because I strongly believe in symbolism of inanimate objects or any part of nature that is taken for granted.  Also, I enjoy the word play.  Another one was the quote from Hubert Howe Bancroft that speaks of myths and language, “Language is thought incarnate; mythology soul incarnate.” In other words we use language to express thoughts but souls are passed down by the myths in our culture. Another quote that isn’t so metaphorically framed but is beautiful in feeling is when the author spoke about characters stating, “By moving often cataclysmic events into the realm of myth or folklore, the storyteller can once celebrate, mourn, and honor the past—and look ahead to a time when the great heroes may return to their people, bearing powerful medicine to restore former glory.” This shows that the storyteller tells the myths not just to inform the listener about the story or culture, but ignites hope that these heroes are still living in the shadows of the specific culture.  This is because these myths are believed and is apart of reality.

I also have to address the story of grizzly bears. I think that the story jumped too quickly. Meaning, grizzly bears were cursed not to speak because of creating a new species without his approval and I felt that there was missing details but the reason made sense.

The Witch's Skin

As all 3 Puerto Rican myths were interesting, although the first one was hard to read without hugging my dog, I have to address my high interest in "The Witch's Skin". A friend interpreted it as a moral sorry meaning that one should be careful who they trust, however, I think it has to do a lot with religion. The article attatched by Peter J. Hamilton discussed in a section that the Puerto Rico believed in holy spirits. With this religious background, I assumed that this is a story about lust, which is one of the seven deadly sins. The young man pursued the witch because she was young and beautiful. Witches magic is said to be strong and manipulating, however, I believe it was because the young man chose the witch for the wrong reasons with the understanding that the witch did not have good intentions anyways. At the end, the husband cleanses the witch with spices and the power of the sun. The witch yelled out against religion while dying and even when she took off her skin. This draws back to the idea of religion and lust. Is this a cautionary tale about lust?

Aristotle's relation to humans and animals

The research on fables and Greek philosopher Aristotle's relation of human to animals is quiet interesting and questionable. The article puts up various arguments about the purpose of fables. One purpose of fables was to show that the lower class was made to be weak and accept they are weak under aristocrats, however, the article argues that these fables were meant to mirror the habits of humans to animals. Most of the animal used were mammals as I observed. However, Aristotle's point was that a lot of our characteristics and habits such as methods of shelter is a lot similar to animals. This brings up the question that can Aristotle's argument be used to support the theory of evolution (that humans evolved from the phenotype a of animals)? Not that I fully support the belief, but can these behavior traits that are traced in these fables support the idea? Survival tactics is also similar between humans and animals... Not literal of course. I wonder.