Question: What does it mean to find panels where the author directly or indirectly draws our attention to the limitations of his animal metaphor?
Answer: In Maus II, Art Spiegelman repeatedly comments on and attacks - directly and indirectly - his own animal metaphor... his own decision to draw human heads as cartoonish animal heads.
Pay attention to panels where the fake, non-realistic, or problematic nature of the animal heads is emphasized or exposed in some way.
Do you see panels where the organization of the human race into specific races/categories (represented as distinct animal species) breaks down or does not work?
What does Spiegelman gain and lose by using animals as metaphors for race, nationality, or ethnicity? Consider scenes where these metaphors appear inadequate or simplistic.
Do you notice real animals that contrast with the “fake” animal heads? Why does the author incorporate real animals into the story?
Can you identify panels where the animal heads are drawn differently? Look for small details. What is the meaning of these differences?
Are there specific scenes where the use of simplistic animal heads doesn’t work well, is problematic, or inappropriate? Look for instances where the animal heads or their simplicity clash with the experiences the characters are having.
