Talk:Maus/Archive 1

Volumes

I have never seen Maus published as a single volume. A box set including both volumes does exist. Lord Bodak 13:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Never mind. ISBN 0679406417 is a hardcover containing both volumes. It seems there was never a paperback including both volumes, only the boxed set of the two paperbacks. Lord Bodak 13:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not true. I have such a volume. ISBN 0141014083 is it. I'll add it. rst20xx 22:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

ISBNs

Is it correct to provide ISBNs for all four editions (volume one, two, the box set, and the complete hardcover)? I think it would be valid to only provide the box set and the complete hardcover, but for now I included all four. Lord Bodak 13:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Furry?

I removed this article from the Furry Comic Books category because Spiegelman does not and has never had ties to furry fandom. This is high art--not furry art. Sorry. It seems pretty inappropriate to drop serious material like that into the "furry" category. --Krishva 08:07, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

It is a seminal work of furry literature -- in that it shows animals doing very human things. Something being furry means it involves anthropomorphic animals; being related to the furry fandom has nothing to do with it. You seem to have a different definition of the word 'furry' than is generally used. Almafeta 17:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are confused with the distinction between 'influence' and 'creation'. Art Spiegelman would probably never say his book is a 'furry' work. Aesop would probably never say his fables were 'furry' works. You are misconstruing them in a manner the artist never intended. As an encyclopedia entry, such a thing should not be allowed or tolerated, as it is not factual. You are working on an encylopedia, not speaking from a soapbox. -- Stiv 04:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whether Spiegelman wanted to write something for the furry fandom is immaterial to what Maus is. It depicts anthropomorphic animals, in that it shows animals doing very human things, and thus it is furry. Its being furry has nothing to do with the storylines, the settings, the artistic style, or anything else; just the character style. I have no soapbox to stand on, nor voice to shout -- I'm just trying to have Wikipedia show the facts as they are. Almafeta 09:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What you're saying is a bit unfair, since I am sure some professionals would disagree with you about what qualifies a work as "furry." Because the word has a bit of baggage carried with it, one has to be careful what one labels with it. If someone in the furry fandom creates it for others in the furry fandom to enjoy, all right, that is furry. But if the use of anthropomorphism is for any purpose other than to appeal to furry fandom (arguably the only reasoning behind making the characters animals in most furry comics and art), I'd be cautious with using the "furry" label. --Krishva 05:19, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

See funny animal for more discussion of this. 68.166.50.142 18:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I actually feel a little bit insulted by the initial argument above. Are "high art" and "furry art" mutually exclusive? I don't like the term "high art" at all, in fact; it seems excessively snobbish to me. You are right of course that Spiegelman's motivations had nothing to do with furry fandom (in fact, did furry fandom even exist as we know it back then?), but I don't think that changes what it is. It can be both furry and respectable as a work of art. I question any dichotomy that states otherwise. - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of any arguments about the congruence of furry art and "high" art, I would not classify Maus as a furry work, in the same way that I would not classify Animal Farm as a furry work (and yes, I know you would, Almafeta :-). It is not inspired by the furry fandom. It is not intended for the furry fandom. It may well be appreciated by members of the fandom, but it is also appreciated by a vast majority of people who are not members of the fandom, just as stuff like The Lion King and Animalympics are. Now, that doesn't mean we wouldn't have an article about it on WikiFur, say, but I believe that in terms of classification it comes under "anthropomorphic art", at the most.

And really, it's not intended in that way either. Anthropomorphic characters typically know they are not human and behave differently. Here, the use of different species is an extended metaphor - the Jews were hunted down "like mice". The characters remain human. In fact, one of the amusing (black comedy) parts of Maus is that, in reality, the Nazis and the Jews were not that different. The book represents the Jews as the Nazis did - as a different species. It is a pervasive story/artistic device, as noted in the article. Nothing more. GreenReaper 00:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Plot

One of the striking aspects of the book is how, after surviving the camp, his father still can hold racism attitudes. Or how he was extremely stingy.

I wanted to introduce that in the article but there is no Plot section and it probably would require a Template:spoiler. --Error 00:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you would like to add a Plot section, you're quite welcome to. However, I'm not sure it's necessary for this article to provide a complete run-down of the book--a plot summary is essentially already provided in the first paragraph. --Krishva 02:48, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Page move

I moved the page as (comics) is the preferred disambiguation phrase, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comic books). Hiding talk 09:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)