Academic Intersections

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.

I already commented rpaul2’s post earlier, but I am making a new post for it like everyone else did.

I think the first chapter is the most important part of the book. It lays the foundation for the whole story. I believe that Baker created ambiguity in the first chapter on purpose. The chapter is entitled Home. It is a place that is supposed to be safe, calm, and inviting– not chaotic. If you put yourself in the shoes of the people who called this place home when the slave drivers came you would be confused too. Baker captured this tension. Baker needed to give the reader something to contrast the rest of the novel with. A random group of people came to kidnap another group. We needed to see this to understand why a violent rebellion without remorse would even happen.

As for the main character… It doesn’t matter who Nat Turner is. They are all drawn similar for a reason. The graphic novel might be called Nat Turner but I don’t see the book as being a narrative about him as much as I see it about slavery in general. It is about how far these people were abused to the point where they said enough is enough. When they were safe on their home land there was no need for a heroin to raise, everyone was an equal there. But when one of your people gets shot in the face, then the rest enslaved; it is only a matter of time until someone steps up to lob heads off with an ax in return.

It’s all about the Benjamins

I’m responding to Daynee’s post on why hollywood hasn’t made a movie on Nat Turner yet. While I agree that it would make a great film, Hollywood is very picky about what it makes. It’s funny to think that shitty movies that come out every year are the creme of the crop, but for the most part it’s true. Any way, those movies that come out are usually cookie cutter movies that have the same plot and are guaranteed to make a lot of money. That’s why this year there are 27 sequels coming out. It’s because Nat Turner is not very well know that there isn’t a blockbuster made about him. I’m not saying that it wouldn’t be a good idea to make one (I think it would make a great film), but that’s not hollywoods game. It would make too much sense.

Forming Empathy Through The First Chapter

While I respect the opinions shared in the well-written analysis by rpaul2, I find myself disagreeing with almost everything that rpaul2 said.

I agree that Nat Turner is a complex book; however, I do not think that it is confusing to the point that it warrants going back multiple times to figure out certain scenes. Kyle Baker does a decent job of keeping a quick pace throughout the course of the entire graphic novel. I feel that slowing down and going back to reread scenes only takes away from the fast paced mentality of the book. The first few scenes may be open to interpretation, but Baker still makes sure enough is drawn that you are not confused by what is going on. It is clear that the character at the beginning is a woman and not Nat Turner. It is also clear that the first few scenes take place in Africa before slavery and on a boat, not on an American plantation.

The thing rpaul2 said that I disagree with the most is that the first chapter is “relatively unnecessary.” The first chapter of Nat Turner could possibly be the most important chapter of the graphic novel. The first chapter displays the history of the slaves to the reader, demonstrating the harsh and cruel circumstances they were put through on the ships and on the plantations. It was argued that Chapter 3 was where the book began to pick up pace and become truly good. The 3rd chapter is riveting because it is full of action and violence. It has the same effect as watching a Michael Bay film: it doesn’t matter what is taking place… the action, explosions, and violence will hold your attention and cause you to not be able to look away. Even though Chapter 1 does not have the same effect on the reader as Chapter 3, it is extremely important because it allows the reader to empathize with the character of Nat Turner. By showing the reader all of the horrible things the slaves were put through, it allows the reader to understand why Turner is committing the horrible murders. Without the first chapter, readers of Nat Turner would view the protagonist as a monster obsessed with the genocide of white plantation farmers instead of as a leader of a revolution; which is a pretty important role for a chapter that is considered “relatively unnecessary.”

Response to Why Isn’t This a Movie Already? by Chris Petrus

            I totally agree that a Nat Turner Movie would be pretty badass. I think the themes of justice, vengeance, and the power of education would have to be really emphasized. Otherwise, the audience of the film might just view Nat Turner as a cold blooded killer and nothing more. I noticed, in Kyle Baker’s preface, the author mentions that zero films on Nat Turner have been released. The edition I purchased was published in 2008, only three years ago. I think it’s important to note that since Baker’s preface was probably introduced with a much older copy of the graphic novel, perhaps even the first release, and still no movies. I also noted that the inside flap of the cover points out some perceive Turner as “a monster, a murderer whose name is never uttered.” The Slave Rebellion in 1831 could very well be the touchiest subject in African-American history because Nat Turner and his party can be argued as monsters. Turner’s story doesn’t necessarily help the movement to abolish slavery like say, Uncle Tom’s Cabin which was published in 1851 or Narrative of the Life of Fredrick Douglas, published in 1845.

            I would definitely be willing to shell out ten or eleven bucks (going to the movies is so ridiculously expensive now) to see Nat Turner on the big screen. But, I think the makers of the film would have to be very considerate when creating this film. Kyle Baker was so smart to incorporate the scene when the slaves are being captured, placed on the boat, and sold off. He establishes the greatest amount of sympathy in his readers for the slaves, so that when the super gore-fest massacre begins, we can’t help but feel a sense of justification for the slaves. I think it would be cool if the director of the film could insert very quick flashbacks in the rebellion scene. For instance, right before a slave hacks off a little white boy’s head, there could be a little flashback where a little slave child is being beaten to death.

History through Images

What really struck me about Nat Turner was the whole concept of retelling a real historical event through the medium of the graphic novel. The ability for the images to stir up such intense emotions in a reader really speaks to the power of graphic novels as an art/storytelling form. And certainly after reading Barker’s novel, we’re all very aware of the historical events surrounding Nat Turner and won’t soon forget them. It seems to me that if you really want a story to be told, and want it to resonate with readers who might otherwise be unfamiliar with the events surrounding it, you could really make use of storytelling through a graphic novel.

We’ll be seeing this again later in Maus, for sure, but I was curious to see what other pieces of human history have been retold through the eyes of graphic novelists. I came across a pretty long list of graphic novels that deal with “historical events,” which indicated that a lot of writers have already latched on to my assertion about this medium is perfect for connecting readers to people, places, and events of the past. I’m providing links to the PDF “Learning History through Graphic Novels” as well as some links to the particular novels I thought paralleled the conceptual storytelling behind Nat Turner.

Yossel, April 19, 1943 by Joe Kubert: a story about the Warsaw ghetto uprising.
Fallout by Jim Ottaviani: graphic novel about the Manhattan Project’s key players, like Oppenheimer
Town of Evening Calm, Country of Cherry Blossoms by Fumiyo Kouno: follows the story of a family post-Hiroshima bombings
Vietnam Journal by Dom Lomax: the story of a war correspondent based on real events from the author’s life.
Deogratias, A Tale of Rwanda by J.P. Stassen: deals with the Rwandan genocide

There were tons more, so definitely check out the PDF if you’re interested in doing some graphic novel reading outside of our class!

Funny Man Gets Serious.

I found this interview with Kyle Baker.  In it the interviewer brings up how funny all of his work had been before Nat Turner, his daughter following in his footsteps, critics’ reactions to his work, and making money as an artist.

He pointed out that when the first part of the book came out critics loved it (black babies dying?  History, it’s okay), but when the second half came out (black men chopping of white children’s’ heads!? Outrage) critics used terms like “brutal.”  I forget that when it was originally released it was not together in one book.  I wonder what the reaction would have been if it had all come out together like how we have read it this week.  I also really enjoyed his last comment about wanting Nat Turner to be used educationally in college classrooms.  I’m glad he got his wish!

Interview with Baker

Kyle Baker, the writer/artist of Nat Turner, discusses why he chose to self publish Nat Turner in an this interview.

In the interview he brings up the idea of the black Holocaust and how important it was to him to educate people about it.  He also said that he didn’t make it political.  He states the images are “visual and human, not political”.  I’m not sure that a reader can completely ignore the political aspects of the novel, though.  Is it human? of course, but I think there is a political edge too.  Maybe Baker didn’t make the novel political on purpose but I believe it is political just the same.  After all, having an opinion on any controversy is political in some way.

Nat’s Voices

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?

Chapter 1: Home

I noticed that a lot of people had been writing about the first chapter on Kyle Baker’s Nat Turner, and while this isn’t supposed to be a response post, I thought I would share my thoughts on why I think the first chapter is even present in the story.

First of all, I think it’s really important to notice the lack of text in the first chapter. Save the onomatopoeia in a few frames (pgs. 20, 22), a brief excerpt from the memoir of Captain Theodore Canot (who is not the author of the rest of the book’s text) on page 36, and another brief quotation from The Confessions of Nat Turner by Thomas Gray on the last page of the first chapter (pg. 57), the chapter is composed entirely of  illustrations. Obviously this isn’t a great departure from the rest of the book, which also barely has any text, but I think it is interesting that Baker doesn’t introduce what will become his only source of text (Gray’s Confessions) throughout the book until the very last page of the first chapter. It seems like Baker wanted to be able to tell the story of the enslaved woman without any interference from another text, but why wouldn’t he maintain this textless style (or at least only incorporate very short, factual tidbits along the way as with Captain Canot’s memoir excerpt) throughout the rest of the book? Why does Baker use another man’s words to narrate his account of Nat Turner’s rebellion? Why does Baker share this act of telling Nat Turner’s story?

It is this establishing of different narrators (/sharing of narration) that I believe is the reason for Chapter 1 (“Home”)’s inclusion in the story. Baker must first establish in a chapter with very few words that his narration exists within the illustrations of the book, not the text, and then subsequently incorporate Gray’s account of the insurrection into the book. By doing this Baker has established a tension between the his narrative (which seems fairly sympathetic so the slaves in the first chapter) and Gray’s narrative, and despite the images being supportive of the violent nature in which the slaves are described, the way in which Baker’s illustrations are exaggerated and hyperbolic such that Will almost appears to be a giant suggest that he is not agreeing with Gray’s account so much as he is questioning it. Baker sets up two interwoven narrations of the same event to show how perspective is important in a story like this. Gray’s account might say something like “Will killed the little boy” (not actually text from the book), but then Baker’s illustration will show a gigantic mammoth of a man wielding an axe and chopping a little boy’s head off. So, even if Baker’s illustration are in support of Gray’s text, they are somehow different. With a different narrator, with a different perspective, the truth of the history can become distorted (whether good or bad).

Like I said, I don’t think Baker was just trying to go against Gray at every turn to produce sympathy for Nat Turner, or that I think Baker thought Gray’s account was at all fictitious, I just think Baker wants the reader to understand that the circumstances surrounding Turner’s rebellion were not as cut and dry as “those people enslaved him so he killed everyone around.” I think Baker wants us to recognize that in dealing with historical subjects like slavery we must not only try and put ourselves in the historical context of the time, but also understand that from different perspectives (as acted out in this novel with “different” narrators) things can appear better or worse or completely different than we thought.

Who was Nat Turner?

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.

Rebellions are Violent?

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?