I feel like every time I write a blog post I end up talking about something my roommates said. I’m sure they will be relieved to know the assignment is over now, so they can stop having to give me ideas on what to write about. As I read “Adam,” I was reminded of what something my roommate that’s an English major said. In one of her classes, she’s studying the books MetaMaus and Maus by Art Spiegelman. Spiegelman, whose parents survived Auschwitz, coins the term holokitsch to describe the manipulative use of Holocaust narratives in pop culture.
“There’s a kind of kitschitification in our cultures in general. It’s that thing of trying to always go for the sentimental money shot whenever one can that informs our debates about abortion, informs our presidential races, informs much of our popular culture. It’s all got to be reduced to Good Guys and Bad Guys… The Holocaust has become a trope.”
Art Spiegelman
I was surprised to see this reduction in “Adam.” While Kurt Vonnegut as a POW during World War II has a different background from the creators Spiegelman lists as examples of manipulating the Holocaust, I do think Vonnegut fell into similar pitfalls. “Adam” becomes a victorious tale that ends with a quintessential money shot:
“They couldn’t kill us, could they, Heinz?”
“No.”
“And here we are, alive as we can be.”
“Yes.”
Say cheese! Vonnegut tries to twist the simplistic victory a little bit by making it a secret one ignored by the rest of the ignorant characters, but I still think the story falls into holokitsch. Since that term was not yet defined in the 1950s, I doubt that Vonnegut was attempting a satirical approach on the term either. Overall, I don’t think Spiegelman would be a fan of “Adam.”
Cover of Maus by Art Spiegelman
