In the Shadow of No Towers

A few weeks ago I picked up Spiegelman's In the Shadow of No Towers at Half Priced Books (man I love that place!). When I saw that we would be discussing it in class and that we had an article about it assigned for a weekly reading, I decided to put off reading the book until this week. After reading Maus I & II once again, I was of course very excited to dive into this telling, by Spiegelman, of a tragedy that actually occurred during my lifetime. I must say though, now that I have finished, that I am utterly confused.

The first half of the book was amazing, just like I expected. Also, the article assigned for the week from Baskind and Omer-Sherman's The Jewish Graphic Novel: Critical Approaches, "When Time Stands Still" was very informative and certainly got me excited about finally picking up the book and reading it. As I read (the first half) of Spiegelman's work, I agreed with the author of the article, that the "all over the place" approach to the images of the story lets the reader understand the chaotic state of mind the author is in while writing them. I appreciated the varying ways in which Art depicts himself, struggling after living through and experiencing first hand his own tragedy, to define both to himself and to the reader who he is and what the tragedy has done to his sense of being. Also, it was simply interesting to hear the story of the experience of someone who did witness the tragedy of 9/11 first hand and in person rather than through the "tube" as most of us did. We all have our "where were you that day..." stories, but obviously it isn't quite the same as actually being there. However, even in the first half, I was surprised that the book wasn't evoking an emotional response in me in any way close to the way that Maus did. I mean, generally I tear up at the mere mention of 9/11. I found myself wondering if perhaps this story couldn't have used a bit more time to marinade before being told. (Marinade? Man I'm hungrier than I thought). Clearly I'll have to read it a few more times before I make up my mind, except...I'm not sure that I can, particularly when  it comes to the second half. Perhaps it is just a little too smart for me? But I am left simply confused. I think it is supposed to be some kind of political commentary, and perhaps that's where the problem lies for me, as I'm sure that I'm not as up on political news as I should be and I certainly wasn't that attune to the happenings of the world following 9/11. At that time in my life I was finding out how to survive in this new and scary world the same way I was before 9/11, getting plastered at the bar with my friends. Anyway, back to the book, the entire second half just didn't seem to fit in the book. It seemed like two entirely separate books in fact. I keep feeling like I missed something, that perhaps my copy is a publishing "oops" and the second half was accidentally replaced with something else entirely and I'll never get to hear the rest of the story. I really hope we get the time to discuss this in class. Perhaps some of my classmates, who always seem to make sense of something I can't, leading to that wonderful "oh...okay...I get it" moment, will have some insight. Please please please, someone help me have that moment. I need this confusion to end so I can perhaps go back for a second reading and a third, which I'm sure this book deserves (I hope).