Anthropomorphism

I easily prefer the work of Spiegelman to O’Brien. Not just because the sheer amount of painstaking preparation, editing, and redrawing in comics is a more significant undertaking than writing of fiction, but also because Spiegelman’s story does not pretend to be Fiction. The most significantly irritating aspect of The Things They Carried in comparison is that it features a Tim O’Brien character, but we can never be sure of how closely that character intersects with reality itself. Spiegelman presents this as an account of what he what told. Whether or not it’s true has no bearing on the story because the author depicts it as diligently as possible.

Maus’ one comparable conceit is that all the characters are animals, but it doesn’t make the reader question the validity of the story. Instead, it operates on the storytelling conventions we associate with anthropomorphic creatures. It works on a symbolic level. The symbolism makes the story easily digestible and provides an easier way by simultaneous information can be communicated.

O’Brien, on the other hand, tries to resist any attempt at symbolism or the fantastic. This is another reason The Things They Carried completely and utterly doesn’t work for me. O’Brien’s only advantage over Spiegelman is that the story he’s telling is from the first-person perspective.

A first person author and narrator is completely and utterly responsible for what their tale achieves—and how it affects the audience. This means that they either have a responsibility to tell the entire truth or as much as they possibly can. Spiegelman tells the story as best he can—mostly because—it’s his Father’s story. O’Brien tries to tell his story and also to pretend like it isn’t his. The latter is a source of annoyance.

The other thing of which makes Maus a significantly more interesting story to read is that it feels more relevant somehow. The thesis of O’Brien’s story seems to be attempting to resist any and all attempts at creating a narrative. This is, of course, something that can be accomplished, but I question an author’s desire to. While O’Brien does achieve this, narrative is the only framing device by which a story can become accessible. O’Brien wants to resist any attempt to impose morals on his story. It’s admirable, but fruitless, because it’s going to happen anyway.  In fact, for the most part, I like O’Brien’s stories. I like what they are about. I don’t like what they are in practice. By this, I mean that they fall completely short of any expectations they set up in the beginning.