The Telling of Nat Turner
Our first writing project focuses on Kyle Baker’s Nat Turner. The goal is to generate a crisp argument about Nat Turner‘s reframing of Turner’s slave revolt. The argument ought to be non-obvious, and reveal something that a reasonably sophisticated reader might have overlooked. Your evidence will be the words and images from Baker’s graphic narrative.
Description
In “The Confessions of Nat Turner: Text and Context,” Kenneth Greenberg notes that “Gray’s interpretive presence shapes many aspects of Nat Turner’s Confessions” (8-9). The structure of the narrative, the details foregrounded, the information withheld, even the wording on the title page—all of these elements imprint Nat Turner’s “confessions” with the hand of the lawyer Thomas R. Gray. The goal of this assignment is to explore how Kyle Baker similarly shapes the story of Nat Turner, without relying on obvious linguistic-based storytelling techniques.
Greenberg highlights a number of ambiguities about Nat Turner’s revolt. Was Turner a fringe religious figure? Was he part of a broader religious tradition? Was Turner a genius? A madman? Was his revolt unique? Was it part of a pattern? These questions and many others abound when it comes to Nat Turner. Baker’s Nat Turner can be read as attempt to answer some of these questions. Yet Baker’s rendering of Nat Turner’s insurrection is not always consistent. There are ambiguities and ambivalent elements at work in the graphic narrative. And just as we do not have access to Nat Turner’s thoughts as he conveyed his “confessions” to Thomas Gray, we do not necessarily know Baker’s internal motivations. We have access only to the graphic narrative in front of us.
You must, therefore, make the graphic narrative “speak” to your reader, highlighting patterns, uncovering small but significant details, finding an angle to the work, and presenting it all to your reader with a confident but disputable claim about Nat Turner. And you must do so in a tightly focused essay of 1,000 words.The general shape of your paper should look like this:
- Establish your core idea. Think of this as your paper’s center of gravity. Everything should come back to it.
- Find visual and textual evidence from Nat Turner to support your idea.
- Introduce each piece of evidence, give it context, and explain its significance.
- Tie it all together in a closing argument.
Deadlines
- Drafts are due by class on Tuesday, January 26. You’ll share your draft as a Google Document, allowing members of your group and me to comment on them. Full drafts include illustrative images, works cited, and your pledge.
- Comments are due by class on Thursday, January 28.
- Final revisions are due by midnight on Tuesday, February 2. These will be shared with me via Google Docs. The final revision must include illustrative images, works cited, and the honor pledge. Be sure to use the project checklist.
Strategies
- Reread Nat Turner and pay attention to panels and images that had previously escaped your notice.
- Look for patterns in the text—for example, recurring visual themes.
- Avoid generalizations. Ground your essay with specific images and moments from Nat Turner.
- Don’t try to sound “smart.” Write with simple, direct language. Cut out the clutter in your writing.
- Avoid adverbs such as “really” or “very.” Also limit your use of adjectives such as “important” or “interesting.” If something is interesting, explain why it’s interesting instead of just saying it is so.
Peer and Self-Critique
For Project 1 peer review we’ll work in the following groups:
Group 1: SL, BG, JH, DH
Group 2: WC, NM, NF, ML
Group 3: MT, NN, MB
Group 4: VA, BL, MW
For each paper in your group, including your own, you’ll perform a critique. This critique takes place in the comments of the Google Document, which you will sign into with your Davidson credentials.
Every critique (including your self-critique) should have the following components:
- In your first comment, summarize the core idea of the paper in your own words. Do this after an initial read-through of the paper.
- Leave a comment that identifies one specific strength of the paper. What makes this part of the paper so effective?
- Identify and comment upon at least three places in the paper where you were confused. Explain what was confusing.
- Identify and comment upon the least convincing example or evidence the author uses to support their argument.
- Leave at least three comments in which you recommend specific changes the author should consider for the next draft of the paper.
- Toward the end of the paper leave a comment in which you rank the originality of the argument. Does it go beyond our class discussion of Nat Turner in new and interesting ways?
- In your closing comment, give the author something to think about—an idea, a question, a recommendation for further consideration—for the next draft of the paper.