After some discussion on the other thread, it became clear that Brian K. Vaughan’s Pride of Baghdad warranted its own thread.
And so it shall be.
After much discussion and thought, I haven’t had time to read the book again, but it’s congealing in my mind that the book is much better than I’d given it credit previously.
For example, people talked about the ending. Well, that part of the story actually happened, so he had to end it that way. I’m starting to get the analogy as well, which eluded me at first. I think I was trying to find the characters as representations of nations, or parties or states, but really, I think it’s about the people. So far this conversation has helped me a lot in that respect.
Let’s keep it going.
Find us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Subscribe to our RSS Feed
Some rights reserved.
One of the best stories i have ever read. And the artwork was wonderful. Really made me think.
I have to agree that the characters don’t represent other nation states or political entities like they did in Animal Farm, but it’s really instead about the people. I think the lions represent the Iraqi civilians that are left with the consequences of the war. The Iraqi civilians, in so many ways, really are the caged animals of the story, making the allusion really appropriate too since the overt freedom the Iraqis were given didn’t result in instant prosperity (and it could be argued, resulted in anything but).
The other animal characters in the book, I think, represent other sections of the population too. There are some who, after gaining freedom, abuse it and cause trouble for everyone else (the monkeys). The horses represent freedom itself (perhaps the idealism everyone hopes to see in Iraq), which the Pride all chase after but eventually turn out to be completely elusive. I could also see the bear representing the previous Iraqi dictatorship that enslaves and feeds off its own people; the Iraqi people overcome him eventually, but each emerging with their own wounds and scars as a result of the conflict.
And I personally loved the ending. The inevitable tragedy of the story that was mingled within the character’s defining moment was absolutely uplifting and heartbreaking at the same time.
It took a while (and a couple reads) for the book to really take hold of me, but after I gave the book some time and thought, it has definitely emerged as one of the best graphic novels I’ve read this year.
Realizes now that this post sounds like one of his English lit papers,
Kal
Oh man, you guys need an edit button!
I also loved this book. In terms of quality, it is up there among the great graphic novels. Will it hold up? Will this book take its place next to the Watchmen in 10 years? I’m not sure. I guess that time will tell. I agree with most of what Kal just posted.
There was some discussion over the weekend about whether or not BKV has taken a side or whether the ending was ambigous. I think that your take on the ending is probably colored by your take on the war itself. I mean that you see what you want in the ending. For me, I feel like BKV took the side of the Iraqi people. Earlier in the book, it is said that no outsider will rule Iraq as long as the statue of the man and the lion stands. The last panel of the book is the statue standing tall. I feel like with this symbol and the constant theme of freedom and it’s promises and challenges that run throughout the book he is saying that freedom was good, no matter how it was gotten, but that now the Iraqi people have to stand up and make it work. He certainly doesn’t come out for order in spite of the sacrifices that come with it. He also doesn’t come out for freedom without making it work for yourself. There is a great line in the middle of the book where one lioness says, or something to the effect of, to the other: ‘freedom cannot be granted, it must be earned.’ BKV is saying: stand up make this work. You’ve been given a chance, who cares how you came about it? Earn it.
I don’t know if I explained this well or not but I gave it a shot. In summary, I really feel like bkv doesn’t pass judgement on the war, endorses freedom but also requires that it should be earned by standing up and making it work.
Although PoB is definately an allegory for the events surrounding it, I think that it is deliberately vague in its representations; I don’t think ‘the lions’ or ‘the monkeys’ represent a group of people, in fact making it such would be playing to wild stereotypes and crass generalisations. I rather interpret it as perceptions and opinions, not restricted to the animal’s race, with which parralells and metaphors can be drawn with the type of thinking that has arisen regarding the events in Iraq, from all standpoints. The outcome does not lean either way politally, instead lending an objective perspective on a broad variety of ideas indirectly related to the ‘war’.
I apologise for spelling errors and general rambling, one reason I tell myself (obviously in vain) not to post/send emails/etc when drunk.
I’ve read a good amount of Vaughan’s work, so the great story was not a huge surprise, but what really made this book for me was the artwork. Seriously, some of those spreads and landscapes were breathtaking. This Niko needs to be on more stuff…
In terms of the characters in the story, I’d agree with Kal in that I felt that they weren’t supposed to be nations or specific cultures but more like different types of people that are pretty much around in any population. The gazelles seemed to be the bigots, who wouldn’t trust another race despite it being to their mutual benefit. The bear seemed to be the powerful that like to prey on the weak, and the giraffe was the crazy sort of religious zealot, claiming God’s on his side only to just get blown away a second later. In that way, I think the story transcends its obvious political references.
And while the ending was obvious given the true events, I like how shocking and sudden it was, just to underscore how brutal and senseless it seemed. And those pages right after with the bird flying really made it for me. I’m a sucker for stuff like that.
Things like this make me wonder how much I’m reading into the story and how much the author actually meant to write…
I think the image of the lion pouncing on the man statue is incredibly ambiguous and completely open to any interpretation. Especially since you have to consider that its original meaning might be very different from Vaughan’s. Maybe it was originally intended to show Iraq’s power over its enemies but now it’s entirely possible that the Iraqi people is the person and the lion is now some other kind of oppression, maybe just the memory of the impression. Which is actually kind of funny when you consider the lions are representative of the Iraqi people in the GN.
“I was already considering reading it again, even though I just finished reading it 20 minutes ago.”
Interesting comment, Fred. This is the first comic (that I can remember anyway) that I finished and immediately picked up to start again. Just started over, right there in Starbucks.
As for whether or not this book will hold up with critical distance, my bet is that it will. I think anthropomorphic stories such as this tend to lend themselves to a kind of timelessness, and I thought BKV wrote it in a way that will allow readers of any time period to see the current events of that day within it (unfortunately, there will always be oppression and war). As much as Vaughan’s intention may have been one thing, what makes a worthwhile work of art is the different interpretations that we are able to bring to it. I think that’s one of the reasons Vaughan has seemed to declined commenting on what he meant.
I’m pretty sure that I agree with most of what you said Dustin.
Matt,
image of the lion pouncing on the man statue is incredibly ambiguous and completely open to any interpretation. Especially since you have to consider that its original meaning might be very different from Vaughan’s.
You’re right in a sense and art is definitely subjective. However, if you want to know what bkv was trying to say you have to look at the symbolism as he laid it out. That is why I refer back to the ‘outsiders’ thing from the middle of the story.
Has anyone ever read the Hemingway short story Hills Like White Elephants? You could reasonably argue that the trauma that the couple faced was one of several things, but you can’t really definitively say it’s about one thing or another because he wasn’t as clear as vaughn was. There is beauty and craft in each approach but I think you have to defer to the intentions of the writer in regard to device and presentation method. Absent that moment, I’d be more inclined to agree with the ambiguity side.
“Things like this make me wonder how much I’m reading into the story and how much the author actually meant to write..”
I felt the power on those pages as well, and I refuse to believe a writer like BKV didn’t mean for us to feel every single emotion and have most of the discussion we’re having now. I mean, how long have they been crafting this thing. Seems like I first read about it a year ago.
“Things like this make me wonder how much I’m reading into the story and how much the author actually meant to write..”
Amen to that Erick! Has anyone read Barnum? I thought it sounded not that interesting, but I’m tempted to give it a try? Is it by Chaykin? How did I not pick that up?
not knowing anything about pride of baghdad i saw a poster of it at this summer’s comic-con and immediately knew i would be drawn to it. i’ve since purchased it and read it but i felt immediately afterwards this strange feeling that i can only describe as underwhelming mixed with sadness. it is incredibly tragic and if anything, for me, what it has illustrated are the horrors of war. yet, there was also an uneasiness i felt while reading this, kind of like the same feeling i had with watership down in highschool, i felt this schism between the very real mature subtext of the war and the representation of the lions within PoB…i reserve some blame to disney and their animated musical features of talking lions, tigers and bears, they’ve ruined my perception to a certain degree on the seriousness of stories such as this one…but something else i did manage to take away from this is the simplicity and almost cutthroat examination of life and death. you can be gazing at the red glow of a gorgeous sunset and then immediately be gunned down aftwerwards. imo, nothing is sacred in this story which is perhaps its purpose…
just on a sidenote my heart really plumeted when i say the chained toothless declawed lion in the palace…god this story depressed me immensely. but when i can, i definately owe this book another read.
I didnt like it. 🙁
I love the story and its art.
I think it will endure the passing of time and will make sure new generations read it.
I also agree that the diff. animals in the story represent the various types of personalities that walk our earth.
I am a sucker for Baghdad and its ancient culture wishing one day to be able to go and -hopefully- see some of its past.
I thank the writer and artist for such a remarkable and most beautiful story. Once again the American savior shows his brutality, no matter what.
May one day peace finds us, even if it’s in death.
EPL
Once again the American savior shows his brutality, no matter what.
That’s why I didn’t like it. It panders.
It totally ignores the accounts that two of the lions charged the soldiers. Also no mention that afterwards that soldiers were assigned to protect the animals and two released bears that wandered back were not shot.
You denounce brutality yet you praise the history of Baghdad. How amusing.
May one day peace finds us, even if it’s in death.
Methinks someone just finished reading The Alchemist…
You’re not wrong about that, but the story is told from the point of view of the Lions, so therefore, it makes sense that the story is written on their side sympathetically. You could just as easily turn the story around and write it from the POV of the soldiers being attacked, and you’ve got a story there. But that’s not what this story was. The thing is, I don’t think the story cast the soldiers in a bad light. I don’t think it made them the bad guys. It can be said that nature is brutal, but it’s not personal, and I think that’s the case here. I didn’t get the sense that the soldiers were supposed to represent the Evil Empire of America. Of course if you’re coming from a difference perspective than the average american, I could see how you might think that. But I think that’s one thing that’s kinda cool about this book is that there are no definite answers for what one thing symbolizes or another. But you took the book as an attack on the american military, and Erick saw it completely differently, and I saw it differently than both of you. That’s pretty interesting.
But you took the book as an attack on the american military, and Erick saw it completely differently, and I saw it differently than both of you. That’s pretty interesting.
I’m with Josh on this one(banner forthcoming). This is the reason that when we initially discussed this at length I maintained that BKV didn’t maintain a clear opinion or decision about the story.
I expected better of Vaughn because he does such a good balancing act in Ex Machina. I didn’t have the problem with the book until the end. The lions are innocently slaughtered (while looking at the sunset and dreaming of freedom no less), but these do not fit the reports of what happened. Vaughn is quick to bring up that this was “based on actual events”, but chooses to twist the facts to suit his agenda, thus painting a negative light on American soldiers. People who don’t bother with facts, like Erick, are led to believe that this is actually the way it happened. I expect better of someone of Vaughn’s caliber.
By changing this important aspect of the story, as well as giving the lions an aversion to eating humans, robs the story of its ambiguity. It’s hard to be ambivalent when the writer gives you no choice as to who’s right or wrong.
POB aspires to be The Lion King meets Watership Down, but it can’t hold a candle to either.
I think I liked it more than the Lion King.
And as we’ve learned from countless films, the term “based on actual events” can have a very loose meaning. But again, that’s a matter of taste. But had you looked at this story from the POV of the prey animals, then the soldiers are the heroes, so it’s hard to say.
I don’t think it was necessary for Vaughn to twist the facts to make the story work. They were starving animals. They should have been eating humans and attacking soldiers. That’s what starving animals do. He should have been able to portray the lions as sympathetic characters despite this. I found it manipulative. There was no moral ambiguity.
I’ll claim my ignorance at not really knowing the story, but you have every right to agree with his choice. See, you should have never read that real story.
Well, I read the real story after reading Baghdad, because I knew that some lions weren’t sitting on a building watching the sunset when a group of soldiers kill them in cold blood. That’s way too “martyr-y” to be real.
I don’t want to sound like i disliked the book. I liked it. I just didn’t love it.
I hear you. I didn’t love it when I first read it, but as time goes on, the more I think about it, the more I like it. But then, I haven’t read it again.
Either way, it’s great when something produces this much meaningful thought and discussion.
Since all I have been hearing are rave reviews about this, I ordered a copy from my comic book store the other day.. 🙂 I can’t wait to read it!!!
The story lacks verisimilitude.
Since all I have been hearing are rave reviews about this, I ordered a copy from my comic book store the other day.. 🙂 I can’t wait to read it!!!
it’s actually quite good. i hope you enjoy it