Shepherd-Post 13

After finishing Maus I find that it is more similar to Carr’s The Shallows versus Safran Foer’s Eating Animals. Both Carr and Spiegelman do not have a clear call to action in the end like Foer does at the end of Eating Animals. In that book we had a clear mission at the end to go vegetarian and stop the heinous crimes of the meat production industry. The argument as a whole was a bit more clear and direct in its telling than that of The Shallows. Carr does have an argument but not a call to action. In addition Carr’s argument doesn’t cover both sides and then take a stance like in Eating Animals, but rather covers mostly one side but with occasional and rational glances at the other and the author gives no particular favoring to one side or another. In like wise fashion-not having a argument but rather a story- Art Spiegelman tells his fathers survivors tale not by only trying to convince you that the Nazis were horrible people, even though this is shown but also showing you glimpses of the kindnesses of people through their willingness to sacrifice safety, food, clothes, in order to give them to Vladek and other Jews. Through their actions we the readers are able to see that not everybody wanted to extinguish all the Jews but instead were simply caught up in the war and had no other choice but to go along with it or get killed.