Book-It '10! Book #40
The Fifty Books Challenge, year two! This was a library request.
Title: The 9/11 Report: A Graphic Adaptation by Sid Jacobson and Ernie Colón
Details: Copyright 2006, Hill and Wang
Synopsis (By Way of Amazon.com Book Description): "The 9/11 Report for Every American.
On December 5, 2005, the 9/11 Commission issued its final report card on the government’s fulfillment of the recommendations issued in July 2004: one A, twelve Bs, nine Cs, twelve Ds, three Fs, and four incompletes. Here is stunning evidence that Sid Jacobson and Ernie Colón, with more than sixty years of experience in the comic-book industry between them, were right: far, far too few Americans have read, grasped, and demanded action on the Commission's investigation into the events of that tragic day and the lessons America must learn.
Using every skill and storytelling method Jacobson and Colón have learned over the decades, they have produced the most accessible version of the 9/11 Report. Jacobson’s text frequently follows word for word the original report, faithfully captures its investigative thoroughness, and covers its entire scope, even including the Commission's final report card. Colón's stunning artwork powerfully conveys the facts, insights, and urgency of the original. Published on the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the United States, an event that has left no aspect of American foreign or domestic policy untouched, The 9/11 Report puts at every American's fingertips the most defining event of the century."
Why I Wanted to Read It: I read on the AP ticker that a graphic novel of Anne Frank's diary was being released. A big fan of the graphic novel form, I quickly found out as much as I could and discovered that the artists that created the new book had several others under their collective belt. Among the many titles was this one. Fascinated on how one would interpret The 9/ll Report to the graphic novel form, I quickly requested this from my library.
How I Liked It: I have not read The 9/11 Report. So perhaps it's unfair that I'm judging a "graphic novel adaption". But there is content and narrative within the adaption that isn't in the initial report by manner of its very medium.
The book does make art and sense out of what is a presumably fairly dry tome. If you're expecting, as I was, for a soul-scarring account of 9/11 ala Art Spiegelman's In the Shadow of No Towers, you'll find the material heart-breaking, but impersonal (as keeping to the nature of the report). The book is lavishly illustrated, but relies on the factual events and lays them out in a fairly straight-forward manner. Incidentally, it manages to depict Bush's notification of the first tower being hit before he entered the Florida classroom straight to Bush's flight to the Barksdale Air Force Base near the Louisiana-Texas border WITHOUT the iconic, notorious image of Andrew Card bending down to deliver the news of the second tower being hit and Bush's frozen expression.
The book falters when it goes "off record" and imagines character's dialog. When Vice-President Cheney is alerted of the first plane hitting the North Tower he watches on television as the second tower is hit and responds with a
"How the hell could a plane-- Oh, no! A second one!" (pg 10)
In the chapter "Foresight and Hindsight", the commission examines what should be done and what wasn't done with an emphasis on the former.
"The Commission recommends that the Department of Homeland Security complete as quickly as possible a biometric entry-exit screening system and work with other countries to ensure effective inspection at all airports. (pg 105)
In the panel captioned thusly, two airport officials work behind a desk while a swarthy, leering man waits for entry.
In a particularly cheesy bit of dialog, a toothy blond man at a computer warns
"Uh-oh. We just received word on this chap from the Americans. He's dangerous."
His partner, a dead-ringer for an stern-looking Tiger Woods, informs the man while clutching what is presumably his passport,
"We can't let you through with this, sir. It's not genuine."
Wonder what country these officials are supposed to be from? Good thing we have the toothy blond chap to clue us in. Does anyone actually say "chap"?
Most uncomfortable of all is perhaps the anti-Muslim sentiment. That is, the book (I will hold off judgment on the particular report itself) doesn't appear to make a distinction between a Muslim and a terrorist.
One such example exists on page 99:
"Pakistan's endemic poverty, widespread corruption, and often ineffective government create opportunities for Islamic recruitment.
Millions of families, especially the poor, send their children to religious schools, or madrassas. Many of these schools have been used as incubators for violent extremism. In Karachi [Pakistan] alone, there are 859 madrassas teaching more than 200,000 youngsters.
Perhaps it is because I am not of the predominant faith of this country (or the world, apparently), but this particularly rankles me. Almost any religion (certainly Christianity) could be used to indoctrinate militants by hate groups. By using the word "Islamic" to mean "terrorist" is dangerous and inaccurate. Does the Westboro Church and/or the Klan employ "Christian recruitment"? Both of those organizations operate under the claim of being "Christian", which therefore makes them as much "Christian" as Al-Qaeda is "Muslim".
Nearly all the individuals shown in the predominantly Muslim countries (as the report covers the history behind the events leading up to the war), both terrorists and civilians (including women and children) alike, are shown with villainous smirks, frequently leering out of panels at the reader. The brows are exaggerated, Boris Badenov-style, on nearly every Muslim or possible Muslim. Obviously, the terrorists are The Bad Guys and are going to be drawn as such (if slightly over-cartoonishly), but the civilians, including women (one has to give the illustrators credit for conveying an evil smirk behind a burqa with a niqāb attached) and children (even in a panel that coordinates with the "schools" passage above has a child of about eight or ten smirking fiendishly out at the viewer)?
In fact, the only real time Muslim civilians are seen to be doing something other than leering fiendishly is in a panel depicting anti-Taliban leader and military commander Ahmed Shah Massoud's "bands" that were charged guilty of massacres along with heroin trafficking. One wonders if portraying Muslim women and children sobbing and being slaughtered is acceptable so long as it's "by their own". Interestingly, it's not mentioned that Massoud was assassinated two days before 9/11 by what are believed to be pro-Taliban and pro-bin Laden forces. Nor the fact that in April 2001 French Parliament member Nicole Fontaine invited Massoud to address the European Parliament in Belgium and in his speech, Massoud warned that the Taliban had connections with al-Qaeda and that he believed a crucial terrorist attack was imminent. Instead, Massoud is portrayed as a "charismatic" leader and albeit "Afghanistan's most renowned military commander", there's the trouble with his murdering, immoral bands. In February 1999, the book reports that CIA head George Tenet received Clinton's authorization to enlist Massoud in tracking down bin Laden. "To capture him, not kill him", a presumably US official specifies to a jeering Massoud in one panel (it is noted at the bottom: "His body language was translated as "You guys are crazy!", pg 34).
Following the Massoud's assassination in September 2001, bin Laden had an emissary deliver a cassette of one of Dahmane Abd al-Sattar, one of Massoud's assassins, speaking of his love for his wife (activist Malika El Aroud, who has described herself as a warrior for Al Qaeda and devoted to bin Laden) and his decision to blow himself up as well as $500 in an envelope to settle a debt, to the assassin's widow.
Oddly, bin Laden himself is portrayed realistically, perhaps due to the fact he's a famous figure and the book's art largely strives for realism.
The book, though flawed, still stands as a valuable piece of 9/11 literature.
Notable: Throughout the book, Osama bin Laden is inexplicably referred to as "Usama bin Laden".
On page 93 we are given the following:
Now look at the lower left at the presidents being counseled: Clinton at the bottom looks recognizable. But Bush?
I see a cross between FDR and J. Edgar Hoover.
Title: The 9/11 Report: A Graphic Adaptation by Sid Jacobson and Ernie Colón
Details: Copyright 2006, Hill and Wang
Synopsis (By Way of Amazon.com Book Description): "The 9/11 Report for Every American.
On December 5, 2005, the 9/11 Commission issued its final report card on the government’s fulfillment of the recommendations issued in July 2004: one A, twelve Bs, nine Cs, twelve Ds, three Fs, and four incompletes. Here is stunning evidence that Sid Jacobson and Ernie Colón, with more than sixty years of experience in the comic-book industry between them, were right: far, far too few Americans have read, grasped, and demanded action on the Commission's investigation into the events of that tragic day and the lessons America must learn.
Using every skill and storytelling method Jacobson and Colón have learned over the decades, they have produced the most accessible version of the 9/11 Report. Jacobson’s text frequently follows word for word the original report, faithfully captures its investigative thoroughness, and covers its entire scope, even including the Commission's final report card. Colón's stunning artwork powerfully conveys the facts, insights, and urgency of the original. Published on the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the United States, an event that has left no aspect of American foreign or domestic policy untouched, The 9/11 Report puts at every American's fingertips the most defining event of the century."
Why I Wanted to Read It: I read on the AP ticker that a graphic novel of Anne Frank's diary was being released. A big fan of the graphic novel form, I quickly found out as much as I could and discovered that the artists that created the new book had several others under their collective belt. Among the many titles was this one. Fascinated on how one would interpret The 9/ll Report to the graphic novel form, I quickly requested this from my library.
How I Liked It: I have not read The 9/11 Report. So perhaps it's unfair that I'm judging a "graphic novel adaption". But there is content and narrative within the adaption that isn't in the initial report by manner of its very medium.
The book does make art and sense out of what is a presumably fairly dry tome. If you're expecting, as I was, for a soul-scarring account of 9/11 ala Art Spiegelman's In the Shadow of No Towers, you'll find the material heart-breaking, but impersonal (as keeping to the nature of the report). The book is lavishly illustrated, but relies on the factual events and lays them out in a fairly straight-forward manner. Incidentally, it manages to depict Bush's notification of the first tower being hit before he entered the Florida classroom straight to Bush's flight to the Barksdale Air Force Base near the Louisiana-Texas border WITHOUT the iconic, notorious image of Andrew Card bending down to deliver the news of the second tower being hit and Bush's frozen expression.
The book falters when it goes "off record" and imagines character's dialog. When Vice-President Cheney is alerted of the first plane hitting the North Tower he watches on television as the second tower is hit and responds with a
"How the hell could a plane-- Oh, no! A second one!" (pg 10)
In the chapter "Foresight and Hindsight", the commission examines what should be done and what wasn't done with an emphasis on the former.
"The Commission recommends that the Department of Homeland Security complete as quickly as possible a biometric entry-exit screening system and work with other countries to ensure effective inspection at all airports. (pg 105)
In the panel captioned thusly, two airport officials work behind a desk while a swarthy, leering man waits for entry.
In a particularly cheesy bit of dialog, a toothy blond man at a computer warns
"Uh-oh. We just received word on this chap from the Americans. He's dangerous."
His partner, a dead-ringer for an stern-looking Tiger Woods, informs the man while clutching what is presumably his passport,
"We can't let you through with this, sir. It's not genuine."
Wonder what country these officials are supposed to be from? Good thing we have the toothy blond chap to clue us in. Does anyone actually say "chap"?
Most uncomfortable of all is perhaps the anti-Muslim sentiment. That is, the book (I will hold off judgment on the particular report itself) doesn't appear to make a distinction between a Muslim and a terrorist.
One such example exists on page 99:
"Pakistan's endemic poverty, widespread corruption, and often ineffective government create opportunities for Islamic recruitment.
Millions of families, especially the poor, send their children to religious schools, or madrassas. Many of these schools have been used as incubators for violent extremism. In Karachi [Pakistan] alone, there are 859 madrassas teaching more than 200,000 youngsters.
Perhaps it is because I am not of the predominant faith of this country (or the world, apparently), but this particularly rankles me. Almost any religion (certainly Christianity) could be used to indoctrinate militants by hate groups. By using the word "Islamic" to mean "terrorist" is dangerous and inaccurate. Does the Westboro Church and/or the Klan employ "Christian recruitment"? Both of those organizations operate under the claim of being "Christian", which therefore makes them as much "Christian" as Al-Qaeda is "Muslim".
Nearly all the individuals shown in the predominantly Muslim countries (as the report covers the history behind the events leading up to the war), both terrorists and civilians (including women and children) alike, are shown with villainous smirks, frequently leering out of panels at the reader. The brows are exaggerated, Boris Badenov-style, on nearly every Muslim or possible Muslim. Obviously, the terrorists are The Bad Guys and are going to be drawn as such (if slightly over-cartoonishly), but the civilians, including women (one has to give the illustrators credit for conveying an evil smirk behind a burqa with a niqāb attached) and children (even in a panel that coordinates with the "schools" passage above has a child of about eight or ten smirking fiendishly out at the viewer)?
In fact, the only real time Muslim civilians are seen to be doing something other than leering fiendishly is in a panel depicting anti-Taliban leader and military commander Ahmed Shah Massoud's "bands" that were charged guilty of massacres along with heroin trafficking. One wonders if portraying Muslim women and children sobbing and being slaughtered is acceptable so long as it's "by their own". Interestingly, it's not mentioned that Massoud was assassinated two days before 9/11 by what are believed to be pro-Taliban and pro-bin Laden forces. Nor the fact that in April 2001 French Parliament member Nicole Fontaine invited Massoud to address the European Parliament in Belgium and in his speech, Massoud warned that the Taliban had connections with al-Qaeda and that he believed a crucial terrorist attack was imminent. Instead, Massoud is portrayed as a "charismatic" leader and albeit "Afghanistan's most renowned military commander", there's the trouble with his murdering, immoral bands. In February 1999, the book reports that CIA head George Tenet received Clinton's authorization to enlist Massoud in tracking down bin Laden. "To capture him, not kill him", a presumably US official specifies to a jeering Massoud in one panel (it is noted at the bottom: "His body language was translated as "You guys are crazy!", pg 34).
Following the Massoud's assassination in September 2001, bin Laden had an emissary deliver a cassette of one of Dahmane Abd al-Sattar, one of Massoud's assassins, speaking of his love for his wife (activist Malika El Aroud, who has described herself as a warrior for Al Qaeda and devoted to bin Laden) and his decision to blow himself up as well as $500 in an envelope to settle a debt, to the assassin's widow.
Oddly, bin Laden himself is portrayed realistically, perhaps due to the fact he's a famous figure and the book's art largely strives for realism.
The book, though flawed, still stands as a valuable piece of 9/11 literature.
Notable: Throughout the book, Osama bin Laden is inexplicably referred to as "Usama bin Laden".
On page 93 we are given the following:
Now look at the lower left at the presidents being counseled: Clinton at the bottom looks recognizable. But Bush?
I see a cross between FDR and J. Edgar Hoover.