I, too, was skeptical about reading this graphic novel. Having never read one, I wasn’t sure what to expect. My only exposure to this genre consists of reading Archie and Jughead comics, but I think I was about eight or nine the last time I read one of those, and they surely didn’t tackle anything close to the deep and disturbing subject matter of “Nat Turner”. I was very afraid that I just wouldn’t ‘get it’. However, from video games to twitter, I’ve been repeatedly forced outside of my comfort zone in this class, so I decided to go in with an open mind.
So, I opened it and began to ‘read.’ I went straight through without putting it down, compelled by something to keep turning the pages even when I knew I would only find more carnage. When finished, I slowly closed the book, completely surprised and impressed by my powerful reaction to it. I had the same sort of feeling I get from watching a disturbing movie.
There is something that images can do that words cannot. (I felt hesitant to even type that last sentence because believing in the power of words is what has lead me to study English.) However, I am not convinced that a graphic novel constitutes literature. I can see using this book in a history class to make the past become real for students. I can see teaching graphic novels in an art class. I can see this being a fantastic cross-curricular project between art and writing students. However, I cannot see this being taught in a literature class. I just can’t. Using a narrative as the basis for artistic expression and publishing the artwork in book form do not make something literature. Yes, literature is a form of art and the graphic novel is art telling a story, but that does not make them synonymous. Maybe one of you in the class can try to convince me that a graphic novel is literature. I’m willing to change my mind.
I respect the position you’re coming from—we’re all studying literature and language because we love words and have faith in their power.
If I were to pick a graphic novel to make a case that they count as literature, Nat Turner would not be my first choice. (Though I will end up making that case with Baker’s work.) I might go with Art Spiegelman’s powerful Maus. And yet I’d be wrong, as Spiegelman’s work isn’t a “novel” or “literature” either; it’s rooted soundly in fact, in his father’s experiences during the Holocaust.
I think my point is that we shouldn’t confine ourselves strictly to teaching literature. There are plenty of things that aren’t literature that are nonetheless literary–an important distinction I hope we can talk about in class.