When Professor Sample asked those of us who had already read Nat Turner to describe it, I said I thought it was disturbing. I say this not because of the format or genre of the narrative, but because of the story itself. I became absorbed in the book right away and read it in one sitting. However, I was shocked and appalled when reading (and seeing) how Nat Turner carried out his rebellion and justified his actions. Yes, I have learned of slave rebellions, but I honestly had never heard of Nat Turner until picking up this graphic novel. Sad, I guess, but true. Unlike Kyle Baker, I don’t recall seeing even a one paragraph blurb about him in any history textbook. I doubt that I am alone, though, as Baker points out that someone would be lucky to find one book on Nat Turner.

                After reading Baker’s Preface, I guess I was expecting the story of a great, heroic man. After all, Baker says “Many of history’s greatest people, including Frederick Douglas, Harriet Tubman, and Malcolm X all cite Nat Turner as an inspiration” (6). Baker praises Turner’s will power and the fact that he overcame the system, found access to books, taught himself to read, and educated himself. Yes, for these reasons he is admirable. But, despite the fact that Kyle Baker references killing, I guess I was expecting more from this man who overcame the odds. I guess I expecting to hear of more of an intellectual revolution as opposed to a bloodbath. Yes, slavery is indeed awful, horrific, extreme, and disturbing. But I was shocked by Turner’s extreme measures. While I can praise the idea and act of rebelling against slavery and creating a revolution, I am not comfortable saying that what Turner did was right. And I seriously question his grasping of the Scriptures and what he believed he was being called to do.

                Okay—whew—I got it out there. I’m sure that, in light of the fact that Nat Turner is hailed as a hero, some people are probably thinking that I’m horrible.

                I realize I’ve been expressing my views on the subject of Baker’s graphic novel and haven’t really analyzed the novel. Graphic novels of this nature open up this sort of discourse, though. It allows the discussion of, even debate over, the events of history. In his Preface, Baker says that “comic books/graphic novels are a visual medium, so it’s most important for an artist to choose a subject with opportunities for compelling graphics” (6). Nat Turner’s story definitely provides opportunity for compelling graphics! Graphic novels offer an effective way to present history. (I sure won’t forget Nat Turner now!) Similar to films about historical events, since the graphic novel is a “visual medium,” readers are note solely reading a story, a history, but they see it play out beyond the images in their minds. This medium is by far more effective than text alone, particularly when it comes to historical narratives! It’s too easy to skim over text or maintain a safe distance from the events. It’s far harder to ignore the visuals.

                I feel that graphic novels have much to offer and, to my surprise, I’ve enjoyed by experiences with the genre thus far. I was first exposed to graphic novels in American Postmodernism last spring and was intrigued by Spiegelman’s In the Shadow of No Towers and Lappe and Goldman’s Shooting War. I worked with graphic novels again this past fall semester in 701 as we studied Satrapi’s Persepolis and McCloud’s Understanding Comics. Much like a film, graphic novels have layers of analysis—not only can you explore the text, but there are also the visuals and the relationship between the graphics and the text, I love the complexity of what appears to be a “simple” form! I would love to teach a graphic novel (Persepolis, in particular), and I look forward to our class discussions on the form and how to teach it.