I feel like there is a lot to talk about with this book, and many of the previous posts have touched on a lot of those issues, so I don’t necessarily want to rehash, but my thoughts on the piece are kind of all over the place. I’m going to throw them down and maybe I’ll be able to make sense of them.
Messiah or Madman?
I’m not entirely sure where Baker’s work falls on this issues. As has been noted before, he claims Nat Turner as a personal hero, but then shows Turner doing some very troubling things. I will be the first to admit that you don’t have to agree with 100% with the actions or beliefs of a personal hero (for example, I count Theodore Roosevelt as a big hero of mine and think he is an admirable man, but he was responsible for some pretty unpleasant things, like the ripping-off of the Panamanians or his blood-thirsty desire to start war with Spain), but there does seem to be a bit of a disconnect in Baker’s hero worship. Turner is displayed as messianic and is drawn to look very heroic, but he makes some very un-messianic choices, like the decision to go back to kill the baby in the cradle. Baker seems to acknowledge this disparity of character by making the depictions of violence increasingly brutal, and the images of the rebels as increasingly grotesque, yet Turner himself retains his look of nobility. There’s almost a sense that Baker is distancing Turner from the most barbaric acts (which fits with the Confessions themselves).
Blurbs
I found the blurbs on the back of the book (as well as the description on the inside jacket) to be very interesting in hindsight. Several of these items state basically the same thing: “This book chillingly illustrates the horrors of the slave trade.” Now, the book certainly does expose some of the horrors of slavery and the slave trade, and rightfully so, but these are not the atrocities that cling to my mind at the end of the book. When I put down Nat Turner, I still have visions of Will, in monstrous hulking mass, brutally hacking people (including children) to death. By the end of the book, I’m not thinking about the horrors of slavery, but the horrors of the actions of the rebels. Perhaps this is Baker’s way of depicting that violence begets violence, and that oppression begets insurrection, but it seemed incongruous to read these blurbs upon closing the book.
Depictions of Characters
We’ve touched on some of this a bit already. It seems pretty clear that as the violence continues the rebels become more grotesque (particularly Will), but there were some other things I noticed.
To begin with, as I hinted at above, Nat Turner has a very Christ-like countenance, especially in the final chapter. This obviously plays to the messianic role he is cast in, but it seemed to me at odds with the lithograph portrait of Nat Turner http://www2.lib.virginia.edu/small/collections/southampton/NatTurnerRebellionPhotos/image/item1.jpg. However, I later found this engraving of Turner’s capture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nat_Turner_captured.jpg which seemed more likely the primary source of Baker’s illustration. Of course this later engraving would have been made some time after Turner’s capture, since the artist wasn’t born until nine years after Turner’s death.
Another thing I noticed, which seemed to add commentary to the images (commentary without words obviously) was Baker’s portrayal of many of the other slaves. As the rebellion continues, the rebels continue to drink heavily. These slaves seem to be depicted almost cartoonishly (pp. 143 and 157), and the implication seems to be that the rebellion might have succeeded had it not been for these slaves.
Additionally, the slaves that side with the owners and warn them of the rebellion are drawn as caricatures of the Uncle Tom/Minstrel-type (pp. 130, 132, 136). By using these types of stereotypical and cartoonish depictions of those not on the side of the rebellion, Baker is clearly labeling them as the enemy. These cartoonish figures call to mind the worst of the racist depictions of black people in the Stepin Fetchit tradition. These characters seem completely out of place in the otherwise serious depictions of the book.
Conclusion?
I guess I’m not sure where I stand on this book, or even where Baker stands. I think in general the book is masterfully done, but I’m left with a general sense of ambivalence. I found the book compelling and thought provoking and I thought the art was beautifully rendered, but was left somewhat empty by the experience.
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “Christ-like” – Christ was never a murderer, and though the “system” was against both Christ and Turner, saying that they have the same character seems rather odd. I do think Baker uses Christ-image-tropes (visual and structural) to valorize Turner, but I think those are more jarring and sentimental rather than effective.
As I said, Baker gives Turner a Christ-like *countenance*, i.e., the imagery of Turner is similar to depictions of Jesus, as is the way he seems to view himself. I wouldn’t equate the rebellion to the works of any Christ figure, but I think Baker is making the comparison, at least in terms of imagery and the idea of martyrdom.
You’re not alone in your “Blurbs” section. All I remember as well is the cruelty, but I guess that is supposed to remind of us the cruelty that begot their own cruelty. I think NT is fitting a graphic novel. Baker was able to put so much into the pictures themselves, but like so many others, we are still left with the confusion over what to do with NT as a leader and murderer.