Prompt 13

I find some similarities and differences from Maus and other books we have read. All three employ personal narrative. Eating Animals used stories of Foer's grandmother, Carr used his own times with computers, and Maus is entirely a personal narrative. The power of personal narrative is that it makes the writer more believable, and genuine. I find that the tool of narrative worked for all three books in this sense.

Shallows and Eating Animals both made their cases explicitly. Eating Animals claimed that factory farms are bad, and the reader should stop eating them, and The Shallows claimed that computers are changing how our brains are wired. Maus however, did not make its case explicitly, but implicitly, though the narrative. Maus' case was that escaping a traumatic experience does not make someone a hero, but it changes and alters them. And the relatives of those people also go through a survival period, concerning the change that happens to these survivors. That a survivor is not a hero, but a changed and different man, and the people around that person go through a survival period in itself.

Maus made all of this claim silently, without directly telling the reader what they believe. As the other two made it clear what their points were.