I'm Sick Of This Abu(se)

Often people perceive stereotypes only for its negative depiction of foreign cultures and ethnicities. Cases like the recent backlash against Abu’s character in The Simpsons are an example in which people argue against misrepresentation of a culture as it negatively affects the way that culture is perceived. However in the case of Abu I’m left scratching my head at why Abu’s character has suddenly become a problem despite being around for as long as he has. It’s not that I can’t see how a person could be offended by Abu’s blatant stereotypical depiction of Indians, but it is not like Abu is the only character in the show who is a blatant stereotype of another culture. Where’s the controversy for groundskeeper Willie, who’s bright red hair, quick to anger nature, and obnoxious accent make him a dead ringer for the most stereotypical Scottish person on the planet? Despite his character being equally as obvious of an “offensive” stereotype as Abu, people haven’t rallied against the show to get rid of groundskeeper Willie. Even Homer Simpson, could be considered an offensive stereotype of an American citizen, from his bald head and overweight body to his lack of any intelligence. Homer is the typical average American through and through, but even the main character, a being who the audience sees the most of, hasn’t rustled anyone’s jimmies even though his harmful stereotyping could be considered even more present than Abu. Chief Wiggum is an obvious jab at the stereotype that cops are completely incompetent forces of authority, Mayor Quimby pokes fun at the “corrupt politician”, Mr. Burns is a satire of a greedy businessman. All of the character’s in The Simpsons are stereotypes, so the show should just be canceled if misrepresentation is an issue. But The Simpsons is a comedy, a satire meant to use these stereotypes as a way of viewing American culture in the 90’s. You couldn’t have The Simpson’s without stereotype, it’s linked directly to every character in the show, so the notion that Abu should be removed as if he was the only character exhibiting the stereotypical traits of his culture seems ridiculous. This entire controversy speaks more towards the country’s ever growing sensitivity issue than of stereotype in itself, as I’ve clearly demonstrated through other characters in the show.
I conclude in saying The Simpsons is a wonderful case study in the use of stereotypes, as every character in the show the benefits in using stereotypes as a lens into our own culture and the way it’s exaggeration of character shows us a lot about the way we perceive other people ourselves. While the stereotypes can be seen as harmful they are ultimately being used as a vehicle to make a grander point about the society we as a whole live in, and thus removing characters that gave it that lens to begin with takes away from the story as a whole. Stereotypes obviously aren’t always used beneficially. Racist depictions of African Americans in the 20th century only propagated the racial bias people had against black culture. Stereotypes can be used to harm as well as it can be used to help, and it is ultimately up to the people using it to determine whether they want to use it to help or to harm. 

Maus-ing on The Impact of Maus

I’m not gonna lie, when I think of comics the first that comes to mind is grown men going around fighting criminals in tights and outlandish garbs. Maybe my mind would then go to cats that love lasagna, or boys that wiff footballs, or those really political comics I never understand. But it certainly never jumps to a story about a writer interviewing his father on his time in the Nazi death camps during the Holocaust.
Maybe it’s because of the first two examples above, but I don’t think people grasped the idea that comics could cover mature themes till Maus. I know I’m making it sound like these people are idiotic fools and of course comics can be for adults. How can people be so stupid and not realize that. Yadda yadda yadda. But of I course I think that, Maus had already pushed the comic medium forward by the time I was around, so I’m gonna assume like the close minded person I am that every generation had the same amount of knowledge I had. It’s easy to perceive things as being obvious once they already exist.
Everyone (hopefully) agrees that slavery is bad, but it hasn’t always been that way. There was a time when people thought they weren’t doing anything wrong by enslaving an entire race of people. When put that way it makes 1700’s Americans sound foolish. And no, I am not saying people that didn’t know comics could cover heavy topics are as stupid as people that thought slavery was good. What I am saying is that it’s hard to know what is or isn’t right when there isn’t a standard set in place. That’s why they’re the standard, they sparked a realization in a large enough amount of people that it changed the way things are perceived.

. . .

It’s easy to see why a story like Maus became as influential as it was. While depicting a very adult and mature subject matter it’s something even children could follow. I remember friends of mine reading Maus back in the sixth grade. While it constantly depicts horrific imagery, nothing gory is ever shown. Characters swear, but it’s never anything major. And I think what adds to it’s appeal is the story’s subject matter. There is something so mystifying about the holocaust, the fact that humanity could allow such heinous treatment of other human beings to happen and then let that go on for years. It’s hard to believe it even really happened, but it did. Like a terrible scene you want to look away but can’t peel your eyes off of. Any retelling of a survivors experience in the holocaust is fascinating, because they all went through so much to be able to tell their stories. It’s not something that can be easily overlooked. So from a narrative standpoint Maus was always going to be an intriguing and book to read.
Art Spiegalman also doesn’t slack on the artwork when telling his story either, taking full advantage of the medium to add layers and depth to the story being presented. There’s an entire metaphor going on throughout the books where the holocaust victims are depicted as mice, while the Nazis are depicted as cats, showing the dominating presence the Nazi party had in that time in a way that could never be translated into a written format. It holds the narrative weight of a novel but also uses images to help deepen the impact of the story. When the audience sees an illustration of mice screaming in agony as they’re burned alive, it carries a weight with it that words could never hold a candle to. It’s for that, Maus was able to open people’s eyes to the potential of the medium, to show that graphic novels weren’t a popcorn “turn your brain off and look at the pretty pictures” form of entertainment. They could tell stories as legitimate as books or movies, and through using the strengths of the medium conveys a story only comics could tell.

You Know I Had To Do It To Them

They asked for this, adult comics, I mean. I tried thinking of an interesting and unique perspective on these bad boys for a solid several seconds, but they’re so direct about their goals and intentions that I’d be remissed not to give them what they want and discuss the only thing these comics want to discuss. Adult comics didn’t have substance in mind when being created. They weren’t written to spread a deep, intricate, message that audiences can take something away from. Then again many comics, regardless of audience, serve a similar purpose as adult comics in that most are made to entertain. It just so happens that they are a lot more blatant with with their intent.
Adult comics serve one purpose. To entertain through obscene and offensive content. That’s their message, that’s their goal, that’s their subject, that’s there everything. Let me clarify that it is okay for a story to cover mature themes, it’s good for stories to cover new grounds and look into topics not often explored. I should also add that a story doesn’t need to have some grand purpose for being in order for to be enjoyable and entertaining. I think The Peanuts is great and The Peanuts just tells funny jokes. In a sense these comics did more from the medium, since they created content that broke the boundaries of how the medium was seen. By that some token however, they did not age as gracefully as a comic like The Peanuts
Perhaps what it comes down to is simply a personal bias. I don’t find these comics to be very entertaining. It may be their forwardness which pushes me away, or that I want more from a comic then just obscene jokes, but no matter how much of it I read I feel I put more into it than what I get out of it. I don’t think the humor is too offensive for me to handle, I’ve long been desensitized to this kind of content. I’m not like the generation first reading these comics, bewildered that such content can be published and bought. I grew up using the internet and nothing I'm shown surprises me anymore, so with that surprise gone I’m left with one question to ask. What else of substance is in the stories to keep me reading beyond the surface surprise? For me - nothing. I bet my thirteen year old self would’ve loved these comics too, laughing at all the obscene jokes, curious in its depictions of sexual content, and eager to see what racist stereotype it can depict next. But i’m not a teenager anymore, I need more than the adult equivalent of a fart joke to keep me stimulated, and adult comics do little to satiate my need for interesting content beyond a surface “SURPRISE!”. Adult content has always been a part of the comic medium from my perspective, so the appeal of these comics is lost to me. I can respect how influential adult comics were on the medium going forward at the time of their release, but that does not mean they still translate into entertaining content today.

Pillow Thoughts Contracting Me To Talk About The Landscape of Graphic Novels

Graphic novels always have always had the distinction from comic books that the stories they cover are a little bit more mature. This is merely an over generalization of my experience with graphic novels though, and a gross oversimplification of the general populous’ views towards comics. Obviously each medium can cover topics of any kind, regardless of the format of their release, and it is foolish to assume comics and graphic novels have to appeal to one demographic just because they’re assumed to do so. This isn’t helped by the fact that what constitutes graphic novel and comic can become so blurred that at times the two terms come off as interchangeable, leading me to often question whether what I am reading is a graphic novel or a comic.

Fortunately this class has given me credence to what some graphic novels are and of what they lend to the medium of cartoons. Drawings have always been perceived as something meant for children, this is in part because of the inherit link between when most people begin and end to draw. A lot of people drew as children, stopping somewhere along the way out of waning interest, resulting in their talents never growing further beyond that which they could do as a child. Because American cartoons have simple art styles, further lending themselves to be more easily imitated by the children watching them, and to have broader demographic appeals to people of all ages, when other stories are made that continue the trend of more simplified styles, people still perceive them as childlike, regardless of the content being presented to them.

I was never under the precept that graphic novels were strictly for children, I’ve known about Maus and Scott Pilgrim since I was ten, neither story containing content which could be seen as suitable for younger minds. And this had lead me towards confusion during this class, as I feel there was a revelation I may have missed, or had already known. It almost feels too easy to say Blankets and Contract With God are similar because they are stories containing mature themes. To me, it would have never even occurred to me as to that being considered enough of a topic to write about. But that’s just the thing, I grew up under the preconceived concept of cartoons being aimed at more mature audiences, and I believe that the idea of a comic having more mature things isn’t groundbreaking.

This isn’t me saying it is bad for a story to have a more mature tone, or that a story can’t be praised for covering topics that are not typical for the genre, but I am saying that mature topics in graphic novels have literally been there since their inception (Contract From God is as far away from a story for children as is humanly possible), and stories since then have continued in that path throughout the following decades. There will always be a push towards children's content by publishers for the widest appeal, but there has also always been people out there creating stories that have a niche appeal more mature audiences will love, and so this idea that more mature stories in childlike mediums is as ancient as my ancestors.

All that being said, I grew up in an age where perspectives on comics and graphic novels had already been shifting. I was born past an age where those mediums were at their peak, where their popularity was rampant, and where those notions were most people’s standards, so it’s harder for me to understand the weight and significance of these stories. I do see why stories like these matter. Even in our current climate there is a continuous push for more mature content in the cartoon landscape, but we’re also past an age where it is as persistent of a problem as it was in the past. Graphic novels are above the notion that cartoons have to be for kids. It’s been that way since the beginning with A Contract With God, and with Blankets will continue to be for future generations to come.