Nimona, Art, Dialogue, and what 11-year-olds have in common with NPR reviewers

       When my 11-year-old son found out I was reading Nimona by Noelle Stevenson for class this week, he said, “Wow! College is so cool! I’ve been wanting to read that book.” We read it together. Or rather, he consumed Nimona in an afternoon like he gulps down gluten-free cookies and tacos (his favorite foods). Then, I meandered through the book. Here’s something he said, “I like it because it’s funny, but it’s about real life stuff.” Tasha Robinson said something similar in an NPR review: “Much like Jeff Smith's Bone, it starts in a goofy, accessible place before deepening into a morally and emotionally complicated fantasy.” I think I like the way my kid says it better. I found this to be true in my own reading experience, too.  
       Nimona begins with its title character inexplicably in the dungeon/lair of bad guy, Ballister Blackheart. He’s a typical bad guy who doesn’t need a sidekick, but Nimona convinces him to take her on because of her very cool shapeshifting abilities. Opposite the two villains is Goldenlion, the flaxen-haired hero who created the villain in the first place because, as Blackheart puts it, “Ambrosius hates to lose.” Nimona is eager, a go-getter, who doesn’t stop to take directions or wait for Blackheart to tell her what to do. Her tendency to jump without looking is endearing and dangerous.  As I read, I loved that Nimona doesn’t have a model body, her hair is different, and she’s self-assured, telling Blackheart “No offense, but your plan was just gonna end with us getting arrested. I like mine more.” She also doesn’t allow her backstory to interfere with her positive attitude. Nimona’s character is what carries me through the story.  
     On craft, Stevenson makes the choice to poke fun at and subvert the fantasy genre on almost every page. The traditional, hero + sidekick model is flipped (at least at the beginning) with the bad guy getting a quite monstrous sidekick. Goldenlion seems to be the gallant knight if a bit dull in the wits department. But, by the end of the story, the situation is much more complex. It’s Blackheart who has to do the saving. Stevenson sets up the reader’s expectations by incorporating fantasy tropes, then surprises by flipping those tropes on their head.  
       On the artwork: I appreciated Stevenson’s style and use of color. The Nimona sections at the beginning are fairly light and punchy, while the art seems to grow more sinister as the story starts to become more serious. I recognized Stevenson’s style from LumberJanes, which I’ve read with my kids too.  
       Since this is one of our last two graphics, I’ll mention that I think the actual writing (words) is fairly weak in all the graphics we’ve read. While I have read graphics that I’ve enjoyed and felt strongly about (Saga cough cough), I don’t think it’s the writing that is compelling. The artwork has to be strong. I think this is why Belle Yang and The Cautioner’s Tale fell flat for me. I enjoyed Nimona much more because of the art. It’s hard to say whether I’d love this story, or be engaged by this story, as a prose work. When you can rely on art to communicate the majority of the story (mood, setting, character, tension, etc), what’s left is dialogue that doesn’t even necessarily need to be written well. Here’s an example from pg 53: Tabitha and Diego engage in pleasantries (which is discouraged generally in prose because it wastes time—an actual line of dialogue “How’s business then?”). Then, we finally get into the reason for the conversation on the next page—“Institution says it’s a hoax. Says it’s Blackheart.” For these reasons, I’ve been wondering what aspects of craft I’m supposed to be taking from the graphics. What aspects are translating for other students? Or maybe, what am I missing?