Speigelman's storytelling is almost the exact opposite of O'Brien's. Both of their stories are very imagery heavy and vivid but they achieve this in different ways. O'Brien is extremely blunt and curt at times to emphasize certain parts of his stories. This to-the-point style really drives home the dark and sometimes graphic nature of a lot of O'Brien's stories. On the other hand, Speigelman gives his stories lots of context and tries to make sure everything is clarified and easily comprehended. Speigelman also spends much more time introducing his characters and the setting. He also describes the process of him writing Maus within the book, giving the reader a view into his creative process.
I like both styles of writing, but I prefer O'Brien. I think his curtness and "no fluff" approach does the war stories he's telling justice. This is not to say that O'Brien's stories are lacking in content or length, he simply doesn't waste any words.
I think you make a good point and with that being said I actually think the opposite. I think that Spiegalman takes the content he is communicating to a whole new level. I don’t think making everything easily understandable is a choice. He HAS to choose the perfect combination of words and images to get his point across perfectly and minimally which is a huge skill. He can’t story tell with words any way he wishes because he has to take into account a limited amount of frames he has to draw in. And he also can’t just draw an entire novel so he has to choose which images best represent the specific words he’s chosen.
ReplyDelete