well i posted this last night on the open thread but i has more to do with yesterday's class so i'm just going to paste in onto this one...

i thought it was a really interesting point brought up in class when we were comparing the maus books with towers and the different historical quality of both events. of course they're different for very obvious reasons, but i think it will be interesting to compare how 9/11 is written about or perceived in 50 or 60 years. also, just something to add about speigelman's bias...i really don't agree with much of what he says. i do however really appreciate respect the work as a whole and don't think that withouth it, towers would have had the same effect or even been worth writing/reading

I really like the fact that Spiegelman takes on the towers... even if it took him a couple years to do so. Or, especially if it took him so long. I think one of the reasons that In the Shadow of No Towers is so poignant is because it's so reactionary. When news of the holocaust reached mainstream America some people thought it was a hoax... and even for those who knew it to be true, they were so far removed and wouldn't have any idea until they saw pictures, read accounts. With Towers, Spiegelman is in Manhattan, right near Canal St. and has a daughter in school very close. It seems like he can get more fired up (and more confused) about the attack and I think that's pretty apparent from the layout and design and content of the book (as opposed to Maus, where he was merely relating a story).
Also, just to add something about spiegelman's bias... I don't want to turn this into a political forum with ranting and raving, but I give him a high five and a pat on the back. The not-so-subtle assertions he makes about the United States' foreign policy are pretty dead on (see Bush and Cheney on the eagle on pg. 4. "Why do they hate us, why?" ).
(Also, it is not my intention to disrespect anyone else's political views... at least not on this blog.)

if one is to assume that spiegelman's viewpoint as "liberal" (i dream of this word's true meaning to return: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal) then how would one construct the polar opposite viewpoint to what spigelman has done? especially within the genre of stylized comics, etc. is it even possible? what would a 'in the shadow of no towers' look like penned by the likes of an artistic sean hannity (now i know that's a stretch, but you get my point)?

is one is meant to interpret or 'mine' in some sense theother viewpoint spiegelman represents as opposite to his own? this other "red" viewpoint?

If Towers gets enough attention someone will most likely try to counter it and attempt to represent it through the same medium. For example, how farenheit 911 is being answered by Celcius 41.11.

Now, how well this potential counter to Towers is able to represent its viewpoints in the same medium used by Speigelman remains to be seen. Also, if you agree with Spiegelman's politics then it is easier to say you like this text but if you disagree it is a bit harder for some to appreciate the art behind it. likewise, if there were are counter to Towers some people's ability/inability to appreciate its art/lack of art would be at least partially influenced by their political views.

i feel like this discussion is missing something... what are spigelman's politics?

Clearly he feels that the attack was Middle Eastern blowback...clearly he feels that the Bush administration turns the blind eye to the cause and focuses on the reaction. He feels as if our political system is suffocating and lacking reason and he's not a big fan of Republicans?

yeah this book is really political! it is hard to talk about it without getting caught talking about the politics .

he is critical of the u.s. government as it stands today to say the least. he criticizes american attitudes of isolationism (ex. hiding under flag, why flags were sold and not globes p.7). he is anti-bush and is against the war in iraq "unelected government began its war to BEGIN all wars" (p.7). and, as i said in class, he talks about his personal struggle to get a handle on things by putting himself on almost every page ("he speaks in your voice america" - underworld) while the government "hijacks" this event and uses it as a reason to go to war as depicted in his other panels.

has anyone read philip k. dick? he refers to his fiction on p.7 as being paranoid and i was wondering what he meant by that and why he is making this reference and why he places it alongside Revelations?

Philip K. Dick is probably best known as the author of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, the novel on wich the film Bladerunner was loosely based. But I suspect Spiegelman is thinking more of books like his A Scanner Darkly or Radio Free Albemuth, both of which feature a variety of futuristic conspiracy theories.

On other note. About "politics." It's okay to discuss politics, and in fact I think it's hard or impossible and almost certainly undesirable to pretend that a consideration of contemporary literature (and contemporary life) can proceed without it. This has nothing to do with the election or even the parties narrowly defined--politics, in my view, is part of the media ecology that we're immersed in every time we turn on the TV, log on to the Web, even open a book. No reason why you all shouldn't talk about politics then--everyone else does, after all. Just so long as the classroom doesn't turn into the spin room.