Category: First Readers

This week I think the most intriguing thing that happened this week was the debate on whether Nat Turner could be viewed as a hero or not and in what context do we see Nat Turner as a hero or not. I think there was a lot of good discussion about it in the groups and I think that we generally came to the consensus that the story of Nat Turner, showed both heroic and unheroic attributes. While some of us agreed that being heroic meant that you were supposed to stand up for your beliefs and your values, the way that Nat incorporated his vision of fighting back was to murder many people. In the end we decided that it was more  of a gray area between naming Nat Turner a true hero due to the violence to which he inflicted on people, including others that who were not directly involved in Nat’s slavery situation, such as the children. It seemed that to Nat, the ends justified the means, but even though he did not fully realize his revolt, the institution of slavery did end later though there were a lot of backlash against slaves after the Nat Turner rebellion. However, it is more of a question of how we perceive the issue of slavery and how we feel that it should have been eradicated. We know from history that eventually slavery came to an end with the Emancipation Proclamation but it was only because of the Northerners victory from the Civil War which was the bloodiest war fought on American soil. Therefore we can see how the issue of slavery and revolt against it would be seen as a gray area in the sense of how you fight back against it. The story of Nat Turner is something that is even shaded today as some textbooks, specifically in Virginia seem to pass over or ignore the story of the rebellion. However, with the re-imagining of this history in a graphic novel, the old issues controversies still arise as to whether Nat Turner was a hero or not.

I know I’ve already posted about Nat Turner but I felt like sharing even more;) .

In a comment earlier I had mentioned that my reading of DKR was likely colored by the fact that at the exact same time I was reading the works of August Strindberg, well in another amusing academic intersection of sorts while we were covering Nat Turner in this class I was reading a play called “The Escape; or A Leap To Freedom” by William Wells Brown in another.  It’s a slave narrative about escape inspired by the authors actual escape and is the first play to be published by an African American as well as the first near-Modern play to be published in the Americas.  The Link to read it, if you are so inclined is here.

Kyle Baker’s Nat Turner is an interesting, exciting, and somewhat disturbing read; an examplary graphic novel (Fun Fact:  Werthams’s studies on childhood delinquancy and comic books was conducted largely in harlem; a predominantly african american readership.  Also a Fun Fact:  Matt Baker was one of the first African American illustrators working in comics, including the art for the world’s first graphic novel, he even has the same last name as Kyle Baker).

I found it very fortunate that we started this class off with viewings and discussions focused on Gods’ Man because there where several similarities with it to Nat Turner.  Both feature a predominantly black and white color scheme and most of the narrative (or rather all in Gods’ Mans case) is conveyed entirely through image, not wordcraft.  The use of the written word is an innovative, and sometimes extraneous, feature of Nat Turner.  There is very, very few spoken dialogue by the characters within the piece, and their doesn’t need to be.  Baker is such a master of his craft that he is able to illustrate the scenes with clarity, and confusion, and although there are many images where the faces are rendered in a nearly flat, heavily shadowed manner, whenever you absolutely need to see an expression or thought occuring, it’s there for you to see.  The text itself does provide an intimate access to Mr. Turner’s thoughts and recollections.  Had they not been there than perhaps the entire extent of his religious influances would not have been revealed nor would the inquisitive nature of Nat been properly explored, this was a boy who tried to make experiments out of dirt afterall.  I feel that the narration, coming from Nat himself serves more to validate the happenings of the book as being history, and less so a companion to the action unfolding on the pictures.

Except for the rebellion itself that is.  We had a minimally textual novel for the majority of the work and then again at the very end, but during the majority of the bloody rebellion we have text.  Is this to convey the chaotic nature of the scene?  Was Kyle Baker simply not comfortable illustrating in vivid details the terrible deeds the rebellion did?  I would argue against the latter sentence because he illustrated the boy being decapitated by Wil.  Rather I feel he uses the historical evidence to give a clear picture of what was happening and instead keeps the images for only the most prescient, telling acts of violence.  At the time of Nat Turner’s publication there was  trend in both cinema and comics known as “gore-porn” where the extreme acts of violence (e.g. Hack/Slash in comics, Hostel in film) where the draw and by avoiding excessive displays of violence he forces Nat Turner to be appreciated outside of that trend.  It also, perhaps, displays a desire that images alone couldn’t fulfil the narrative needs of the rebellion. 

And finally I find it interesting that his mother is such a prominent character in the first half, far more representative of the family unit than Nat’s own family was.  Their tenure in this novel was brief, never allowing us to feel for them as individual characters.  Is this a critique on the unreliable nature of domesticity within slavedom or a necessity of craft to keep the space needed in the narrative to a minimum?

We all learn about the man Nat Turner in American History, but it wasn’t until I read the blurb on the bookjacket that I even realized who exactly this novel was about. The author comments in the foreword  about how all these great civil rights leaders (Malcolm X, Frederick Douglas, Harriet Tubman) all cite this man and the rebellion he led as a great inspiration, yet in my American history class there might have been a total of three sentences about him.  Telling his story in this format is a good way to get people’s attention.

I like how Nat Turner is formatted, with the story mainly being told in illustrations.  The few words that are present are quotes and excepts from scholarly publications about the slave trade or Nat Turner’s life. The backstory of his youth and devout belief in the bible which contributed to his construct of the Rebellion was very detailed and in parts horrifying. The first image that really sticks with me is the author’s portrayal of Nat Turner’s mother’s journey to America on the slave ship, with the dead woman laying next to her and her trying to throw the newborn to the sharks instead of having it live whatever life it may have to lead in the Americas. The illustrations of the actual rebellion were a lot more violent than I had imagined they were going to be, I suppose that’s fitting though because rebellions aren’t typically peaceful gatherings.

So the most prominent thing that stands out to me is the violence in the book. I feel kind of silly for not expecting violence in a book about a rebellion. Although as the preface says, we aren’t really given anything except for a sentence of two in history books about Nat’s rebellion; I didn’t know too much about it at all. The entire “Freedom” section was intense (and rightfully so). I felt like I was watching a movie, which was pretty awesome. I guess it evoked a strong emotional response from me; I wasn’t reading, I was watching.

Throughout the first few sections I found myself completely lost and thinking, “What’s going on” and “Wait, who is that? Is that one Nat?” I do believe that there’s an important reason for including the beginning stuff even if I’m not sure what the reason is. My guess is that you have to know where someone came from to know where they are going. And maybe we wouldn’t think the slaves’ actions during the rebellion would be justified if we didn’t know what they experienced to become slaves. Once again, slave hardships sometimes seem to be nonexistent in history books.

There’s one panel that’s just stuck in my head and it’s the one with the baby and the shark. I can guess why the events leading up to it occurred, but who caught the baby? Am I right to assume that the baby is Nat Turner? Am I the only one confused?

Whoa! What an impressive piece of work. Kyle Baker’s Nat Turner was really something else.

This isn’t really a complaint, but I found myself constantly going back to take a second look at certain frames to fully understand the scene depicted. There were many instances where I just pressed forward totally confused (especially in the first two chapters). I suppose it’s just a complex book and should be praised for being so? A lot of things are implied in the frames, and many of them are subtle enough to miss.

I would also say that the first chapter was relatively unnecessary. I almost felt the whole time that Baker was trying to extend the story too far in the past (excessively so) and that the story really only needed to begin with Turner. I was just confused the whole time during the first two chapters — which one of these voiceless speakers was Turner? They all drawn similarly! Perhaps I was just overthinking it.

Once it was clear which character was Turner and once he had his epiphany and began his revolt, the book really picked up pace and everything really clicked. I then went back and re-read certain scenes to really understand ’em. Overall? Good book, glad I read it.

At first, I was surprised at how Baker portrayed the rebellion.  It was obviously going to be a violent event, but I remembered that Baker had described Nat Turner as a hero of his in the preface of the book.  So I found it odd that his hero and the blacks that he led were portrayed as utterly ruthless, killing men, women, and children alike without remorse.  Taking this into account, I got that the slaughtering of the whites was an abomination that was given birth to by the abomination of slavery.  In fact, there are scenes of pain, suffering, and horror throughout the entire book, none of which would have occurred were it not for slavery.

Nat Turner was a gifted and highly intelligent man, but unfortunately born into a life of servitude.  As a slave, it seems that he didn’t accomplish much more in life than a brutally violent, religion-inspired rebellion.  Given these facts, I’m led to imagine what good he could have accomplished and contributed to his society if he was a free man, and not burdened with the shackles of slavery.  People were naturally drawn to him due to his intellect and charisma, and he seems to be a born leader.  Would his leadership benefit his fellow man?  Would he still perceive himself as a Christ-like figure?  And how many other similar individuals with great potential might have been held back due to the circumstances of their birth?

My first reaction to Batman: the Dark Knight Returns was that there were too many words. I felt as though I couldn’t pay enough attention to the images  in each panel, especially when the text was located in the white areas outside of the panels. The text was too distracting and I found myself paying too much attention to the text and skimming over the pictures. The best comparison I can give of  my reading experience of Batman is to that of reading a picture book because generally when reading a picture book I read the text and expect the pictures to just reinforce what the text is saying instead of providing additional information. Also the text is mainly what’s needed in order to understand the story.  The narrative in Batman seemed overwhelming to me and I believe that there is no way I would have been able to follow the storyline if the words were removed. I think that compared to God’s man the images used in Batman contained less information and narrative even though artistically the images weren’t any less detailed.  My reading experience felt choppy but I don’t think that only had to do with the fact that there were too many words. I think that the extreme changes in the format and sizes of the panels between each page caused some of the incongruity.  Some pages had 6 panels while others had sixteen. Some panels overlapped while others had large gaps between them.  Then there were some pages that were filled with what might amount to paragraphs of texts and others that only contained 2 words.  Although there may have been many hiccups during my reading I realize that this situation may be a storytelling technique used by the author. For example the author might have purposefully started the novel off on such disjointed way in order to depict Bruce Wayne’s struggle with the revival of Batman. Or maybe I’m just not used to the style of American graphic novels and this feeling of incongruity comes from that fact.

I found this article to be extremely interesting. It was great to have the entire background stories for some of the most famous comic book characters within the article because I never knew about them. Growing up, I was never fully engulfed in comics or superheros. Now that I think about it, most of what I was exposed to was by watching television. Captain Planet was probably the closest thing to superheros that I ever watched. The ways in which this article encapsulated the very core of Batman and the story of how he came to be, both in our world and the world of Batman as a superhero was really cool because it makes Batman someone we can relate to and invites us into his world.

The time line that the article presents to the reader definitely sets the scene for just how far back the story of Batman goes back. It definitely opened my eyes to just how long superheros like Superman and Batman have been around. It also sparked a particular interest of mine to read that many of the “villains mirrored aspects of Batman’s character and development,” because it adds emphasis that the creators of Batman truly thought about what areas of the adventures of Batman would piece together to create an overall remarkable character. Just as the villains may provide insight into the history of Batman himself, they also created characters such as Alfred to add stability and comfort to the ever-chaotic lifestyle of the Batman(p.4).

This is my first experience with Batman outside of major cinema (Batman Begins, The Dark Knight) and cartoons. The first thing I noticed off the bad was how distracted I felt as I read The Dark Knight Returns. I either found myself flying through the pictures or getting so distracted by the words that I didn’t notice the pictures. This being said I had to keep going back  so that I could understand what exactly was going on. I also found that there was a lot more action in this as opposed to Gods’ Man. There were also many more pictures on each page. There was also much less gutter space between images. This being said I had to use more imagination in Gods’ man than in this because I felt a lot more was given. For this reason the story was more straight forward and easy to understand.

One thing I thought was interesting and confusing at one time was how the novel would jump back and forth between action sequences with Batman and what was going on with the news and the public. Though I had to go back a few times I think this added a nice touch to the story. It allows a duel story where you see things through both the public’s eyes and through batman’s eyes. The way some were for batman and other were not really fascinated me. What did this do for everyone else? Did everyone enjoy this aspect of the book or did it confused them? Was this easier to read than Gods’ Man? If you are new to Batman in graphic novels like I am did this live up to what you know about Batman?

Well, I was curious as to see what the guy actually looked like, so, I went out on the web in search of a picture of old man Ward. Unfortunately, finding a picture of him is apparently about as rare as finding words in his woodcut novels… however, I did manage to find one real life photo when he was old and saggy-> http://www.bcn.net/~mmccurdy/penmaen.htm (scroll down to the bottom) he is also with Allen Ginsberg.

I also saw what is apparently a self portrait of himself, done in 1927.

After reading Gods’ Man, I wanted to see who was the man behind such haunting images, and, I wasn’t disappointed.

Lynd Ward’s Gods’ Man made me consider the reading experience in a new way. Instead of the continuous, forward motion I was used to while reading literature, I found myself flipping back, re-reading, and dwelling longer on a given page while skipping quickly through others. I became hyper-aware of how often I was flipping the pages and how I was constructing a story out of the images presented to me. The story, it seemed, came out of the image’s position between the previous and next image. The context created the story. When reading books that aren’t graphic novels, I read the page, processed the information and moved on to the next one. Then, repeated as necessary. The story in text-based novels was continuous and unconcerned with page sequence. The pages were more of a mode of transport for the story rather than a storytelling technique, as it was with Gods’ Man. My multi-directional experience with reading Gods’ Man made this previous method of reading seem laborious and menial in contrast.

The reading from Scott McCloud’s book also talked about the unique experience of reading graphic novels. His discussion of closure and the “staccato rhythm of unconnected moments” applies to the reading of Gods’ Man as well, but to a larger degree. Where McCloud was discussing how the gutter between panels creates a jarring movement in the story, in Gods’ Man, this effect is multiplied because the space expands from a few centimeters to an entire page.  The space is also coupled with the action of turning the page, so the revelation of the story is even more broken. However, as McCloud notes, this dynamic allowed the reader to become a collaborator, which was an entirely pleasurable experience for me.

It was interesting to me how the characters were represented using expressionism, like what was discussed in chapter 5 of the McCloud reading.  The images were surreal, and lacked the perfect real world representation of form and function of the impressionistic era.  This departure from realism still left me with a clear sense of what was going on, and perhaps would probably seem clearer to me than an impressionist approach.

Expressionism allows the bad guys to instantly be seen as malevolent without the use of words.  Overly embellished featured of certain characters effectively made some of them look evil or untrustworthy without having to tell me that with words.  Because people’s looks rarely reflect their true nature, and an impressionistic approach may have made it difficult to portray one’s inner evil without the assistance of written text.

I think God’s Man was the first time that I had ever tried to read something with no words.  Quite frankly, I was pretty confused for the first couple chapters and had to go back and reread it a few times to get the most out of the work.  I found myself trying to read the scrolls with “words” on them to get a better idea of what was going on, but then realized that they were merely representations of words rather than written text.  While this was a pretty cool novel, I’m pretty sure that I will not be referencing anything from this book for the tracing project later in this semester.