\\n  “Go to Jerusalem and mark the foreheads of the men who sigh and weep because of all the abominations that occur there… Kill them all, old and young, maidens, women and children, but do not even approach those who have the mark.”\\n

The first thing that must be known about Nat Turner is that he is not the same as a car, although both are movable property that can be sold or rented by the hour. It is also important to understand that Nat Turner, even being black, was endowed with free will and volition, in such a way that, unlike the car, the consequences of his actions were not the responsibility of his owner and that, therefore, he could be judged for them. And most importantly, Nat Turner led the bloodiest rebellion of black slaves against slavery in the US, a failed rebellion for which he was judged and sentenced to die on the gallows.

Regarding The Confessions of Nat Turner, it is also advisable to know that it is a work of fiction, winner of the Pulitzer Prize in 1968, and that it was written based on the supposed confessions that the slave himself made to his defense lawyer Thomas Gray in the hope of being released from the chains that tightened his ankles, wrists and neck and thus make his last days more bearable before being hanged.

And, finally, they must know that reading “The Confessions of Nat Turner” will challenge them to understand why this novel was so criticized and even branded as racist.

Styron makes an exercise of reflection in his novel based on what little is known about Turner's life in order to establish a plausible basis for explaining some of the events that occurred there. Why the massacre of 57 people, including children and women, many of them defenseless and murdered in their own beds? Why did Turner, who led the rebellion, only take care of killing a single person? Why was that person precisely an 18-year-old girl? Why did his action not limit itself to appropriating the means that would allow them to flee to freedom? Why was the rebellion so little supported among black slaves? Why did many of them defend the possessions of their white owners?

\\n  “Servants, obey your masters with all fear, and obey not only the good and gentle masters, but also the perverse… all the wrongs you commit against your masters and mistresses are wrongs you commit against God himself, who in his designs has given you these masters and mistresses, and expects that you will behave towards them in the same way that you would behave towards him.”\\n

For my part, I can only understand the criticisms in virtue of the sacrality that the myths, the symbols, of a struggle that is otherwise just and necessary come to attain. Only from that quasi-religious perspective can it be understood that someone like Nate Parker, director of The Birth of a Nation, another vision of the same events narrated in Styron's work, can come to see in the character of the novel “a sexually disturbed lunatic whose only motivation depended on his uncontrollable lusts for white women, and a rebel who lacked a true purpose or intelligence.”

And only starting from this indignation at the argued doubts that Styron raises about the traditional figure of a virile, dominant and brave Turner, can the ability of a white person to understand what slavery meant be questioned; only in that context can the criticisms of the recourse of giving a literary voice to a character who clearly should not be able to express himself as he does here be framed; only with that perspective can someone find it aberrant to put in the mouth of a slave the indignant contempt for many of his unfortunate companions (“Beat a negro, starve him to death, let him wallow in his own excrement, and this negro will be yours until the end of his days.”), that one can wonder why there were not more rebellions, that the docility of many of them in the face of their oppression can be denounced, that it can be observed how internalized their situation of slavery was.

Criticisms that, in my opinion, have as little basis as those made to Styron from the other side of excusing the massacre.

Read the novel, a great novel, and if you find reasons for criticism, we will discuss them.

Much has been made of this book, with criticism ranging from the extreme charge of racism to the milder implication that Styron, as a white man, could not capture Nat Turner's "blackness" the way a black writer could have.

I don't wish to address this book within the context of these controversies. Styron may not have been able to capture Turner's blackness the way a black writer could have (as an Asian-American woman myself I will never know), but he did capture Turner the man in a way only a great writer can.

The figure of Nat Turner is a compelling one. Even though we can sympathize with his cause, we are still somewhat appalled by the bloodbath he created and the terror that followed in his wake. His motivation, too, adds to our fascination with him. Had he claimed to be attempting a political overthrow or simply to be acting out of revenge, he would not be so intriguing. Instead, however, he claimed to be acting on the direct orders of God. And it was this claim that must have burned like a brand into the hearts of the white slaveowners, many of whom had already bent their minds into knots in their attempts to justify black slavery from a Christian perspective. Nat the avenging prophet challenged not only the system of slavery, but also the divine justification for it on which slaveowners relied to assuage their own consciences.

Turner could easily have been presented as a deluded religious fanatic, but some instinct told Styron not to portray him so. And indeed, if we as a culture could convince ourselves that he was simply a religious fanatic I doubt we'd be as fascinated by him as we are. Instead Styron portrays him as dark and brooding, deeply conflicted, torn by ambivalences, driven by a love that eventually becomes indistinguishable from hate. He loves his fellow slaves, but despises them for their ignorance; he even loves some of his masters, but hates them for their inability to act on their convictions; he loves Margaret Whitehead, but hates her for making him love her in a world where such love is forbidden; he loves God deeply, but in the end comes close to hating Him for calling him to such a dreadful task; and, most of all, he loves himself, but hates himself for being caught between worlds - too educated to belong to the slave community, but too dark-skinned to belong to the white community.

Some have commented on Styron's failure to give Turner a wife, but it is precisely Turner's loneliness that is his defining characteristic. He does not belong with anyone, or to anyone. He does not fit in anywhere. It is this frustration that ultimately drives him to slaughter, but it is also this frustration that leads to his undoing. He sought to use his fellow slaves to destroy the white world to which he could never belong, but he also realized that, even with the whites gone, he could never belong to the rag-tag group of slaves who would remain. Critiques that Styron hasn't captured the "black experience," I believe, rather miss the mark. Styron wasn't attempting to speak of the black experience, but rather he was attempting to speak of the experience of a lone man who sat on the margin between slave and free, who refused to be trapped into the world of slavery even when he knew that the free world would never let him in. In the context of race relations, Styron's book can be seen as having done a great service in showing that, at those points where the boundaries between black and white, slave and free, begin to blend and blur, danger and destruction to both races lurk. In such cases there are only two options. We can do as the slaveowners did and redraw the boundaries even more rigidly, a task which is bound to fail as the boundaries once again begin to merge over time. Or we can eliminate the boundary altogether - a task which I am sure Styron would support, and one which we are still in the process of completing.

I am well aware that there exists a debate regarding the legitimacy of these so-called "confessions".

Gray, being a white man, might have had his own motives for writing in the manner he did.

Nevertheless, this particular edit does indeed make an effort to put the confessions into context. It includes not only photographs of slavery in the South but also those related to the slave trade itself.

This makes it a valuable read for anyone who has an interest in slavery, American history, or the Civil War.

It provides a more comprehensive view and allows readers to gain a deeper understanding of the complex and tragic history of slavery in the United States.

By presenting these different aspects, it helps to paint a more accurate picture and encourages further exploration and discussion on this important topic.

Brutally hard to read the copy of this I had with my blind eyes.

I preferred HBS representation but enjoyed Styron's take also. Had no clue this book was and is so controversial - but not surprised. I might have been had it not been for the recent Zimmerman trial and the media bringing to light and maybe baiting a bit a great racial tension today. In 2013.

The controversy is related to Nat's sex and fantasy relationships but also because he had a lot of nerve in the midst of the civil rights movement to write it at all. Styron is white so what does he know about the mindset of a slave?

Read it anyway. It's a good story. I want to give it 4 stars. I'll think about it. 3.5 for now. It just wasn't a book I could not put down.

As far as the book goes Styron's FICTIONAL representation of a historical event was sometimes confusing but in some ways made good sense. His portrayal of Nat Turner as a religious fanatic with psychological issues seems to be pretty much on target.

It was a journey that I knew up front (being fiction and all) would have relationships the writer couldn't know about and I found them interesting. You never know. It is plausible! I read an article Styron wrote defending his position and I'm glad I read that after the story.

I just don't get that you can hate a person more for being nice to you. That's just crazy. Then again I've never been owned by anyone and that is a good reason to hate all on it's own. We had no right as a people or a country to ever own another human being. Shame. Easy for me to say now 200 years late and not raised in that culture. But still true.

The book "The Confessions of Nat Turner" by William Styron is a complex and thought-provoking work. Despite its controversial nature, it offers a unique perspective on a historical event. Styron's fictionalized account of Nat Turner's life and the events leading up to his rebellion can be both confusing and enlightening.

The portrayal of Nat Turner as a religious fanatic with psychological issues adds depth to the character and makes the story more engaging. While some may argue that Styron, being white, may not fully understand the mindset of a slave, his attempt to bring this story to life is值得称赞.

Overall, this book is a good read that challenges the reader to think about race, slavery, and the human condition. It may not be a page-turner, but it is a story that will stay with you long after you have finished reading.

I had already completed the reading of "The Confessions of Nat Turner" and returned it. However, yesterday, while searching for another book, I discovered my original copy.

My original is a dark orange color with large black letters. It has a copyright of 1966 and 1967 by William Styron. It is a Signet Book published by The New American Library, Inc., printed in the United States of America, with the first printing in September 1968. The price on the top right outside face is $1.25. The back cover is the same orange as the front, but the spine is a pale pink, having been exposed to sunlight for many years. The spine also has a small bulge, approximately 4 mm.

The first page is titled "Turner’s Rebellion" and consists of what we now call blurbs. Wilfrid Sheed of the New York Times Book Review states, "Nat Turner was induced to write a confession which Mr. Styron has managed to merge quite smoothly into his novel……No historical novel has ever done more …Styron’s version of the old South is not the usual derivative, Daddy’s plantation stuff, but a place freshly imagined stone by stone."

Following this one page, in addition to the required printed data, we have a page titled the "Author’s Note." This is a one-page statement by Styron saying that in August 1831, in southeastern Virginia, the only known negro slavery rebellion or insurrection took place. Through some modifications, a brief pamphlet of twenty pages called "The Confessions of Nat Turner" came into being. Styron says that he followed the known facts about Nat Turner and the revolt, but in those areas where there was little knowledge about Nat Turner and his motivations, Styron made it up.

The novel received mostly good to excellent reviews and was selling well until midsummer of 1967, when objections to "The Confessions of Nat Turner" began from both blacks and whites. The Negro of 1967 was vastly different from the black slave of 1831. At first, it was just a complaint about a white man imitating the black slaves' talk and even saying what he thought.

The novel starts out in the local jailhouse where Nat, in leg irons, shackles, and chains, is asking for something to eat. The guard tells him he ate yesterday and it's not time to eat. Then Mr. Gray comes in and says he will be Nat's lawyer and it is also his duty to take his confession. Nat says two nights ago he had a vision - "I’ll swear that the Lord came to me in a vision and the Lord, he said: “confess, that all the nations may know. Confess that thy acts may be known to all men.”

With a prior vision from God, Nat had formed a small core of slaves for meeting in the woods away from all people on Sundays. In flashbacks, Nat narrates the book. He was a bright boy who had learned to read the Bible at three years old. Since his mother worked as a maid in the big house, he was allowed to live there also. The daughters of the owner of the plantation studied with Nat and helped him improve his reading and writing. And Nat acquired books and read them front to back, learning about the big world around him.

Nat had an easy life, but his brother and sister slaves had a very hard life. They worked long hours in the field, had little to eat, and lived in shacks. Sometimes the plantation owner would take a hardworking slave to town with him and come home without him, having sold him at auction to the farmer with the highest price and taking him down river to farm on the larger plantations in Mississippi or Alabama. This occurred even when the man was married and had children.

The plantation owners often had a supervisor or foreman who determined where the slaves worked and what they did. Any slave who was slow in doing the task he was given was beaten, usually on the bare back with whatever was handy. But Nat and his five inmates would go to the woods every Sunday. These six would kill the whites at their plantation, quickly go to the closest plantation, and attack without any warning, killing all the whites including women and children, taking any weapons at that plantation, and stealing all the horses they could. And they quickly signed up any able slaves that would go with them.

This worked for four or five plantations along the line to Jerusalem. But at some point, a young girl got away and got to the next plantation ahead of the marauders, and a defense was set up in the house with rifles. This was the beginning of the end for Nat Turner and his men. In one force vs. the other force the next day, the whites broke the line of Nat’s men, and about 20 of the men left the field to go home. In the next few days, all of the slaves were either shot or captured for hanging, and they were hung quickly. Nat Turner evaded the white men until he finally gave himself up. From here, we are back to Nat Turner and Mr. Gray recording Nat’s Confession. "The Confessions" are a mere formality. Based on the plot which was followed as much as the flimsy record would allow, the personalities are as cohesive as a group of...

Of William Styron's four main works of fiction, which in this context refers to full-length novels, the Pulitzer-winning "The Confessions of Nat Turner" is my least favorite. However, it is still an extremely good work. This should give you an idea of my high regard for Styron.

For years, people have criticized Styron for his portrayal of Turner, who was said to be acting on a mandate from God in leading a slave uprising. You know, a white guy writing in the first person as a black man and taking liberties with history. Today, the book seems less controversial, considering the numerous novelizations of history and historical figures with their own unique perspectives that fill the bookshelves. That being said, if you can only accept historical fiction in its purest form without any embellishment, it's best to avoid this book. For example, if you hated Russell Banks' "Cloudsplitter" (I, on the other hand, loved it), you would probably also dislike "The Confessions of Nat Turner."

It's important to remember that Styron is not attempting to present a straightforward history. If you keep this in mind, you will likely enjoy this book. Much of it is deeply moving and powerful. As always, Styron's writing is so excellent that the subject matter often becomes secondary.

While the afterword in this edition did indeed provide me with much-needed insights into Styron's process and his response to the often criticized elements of the book, I cannot say that I found it entirely satisfactory.

This is an ambitious book, to say the least. A white writer tells the story of Nat Turner's rebellion in the first person. For the most part, it is a wonderful and compelling read, based on the somewhat limited original Confession. The many sins of slavery, as related to us by the slave Nat Turner, take on a more vivid and present feel. You are in the moment every step of the way and witness Nat and his plan evolve throughout.

However, my only objection lies in the many times when black characters seemed positively overcome with lust for white women, including Nat himself. There are times, in fact, when characters fantasize about raping white women. To me, this just felt like a very tired stereotype. It seemed out of place and marred an otherwise good read. It made me question whether Styron was truly able to understand and represent the complex emotions and experiences of the black characters in a way that was both accurate and respectful.

Overall, while I did enjoy much of the book, this one aspect left a sour taste in my mouth and made me think more deeply about the role of the writer in representing the experiences of others.

I have a plethora of thoughts on this. It is an extremely powerful novel. Early on, I entertained the thought that if two Pulitzers had been awarded in 1968, this could have potentially won it twice. Reading it now, nearly 50 years after its publication and with 21st Century perspectives, I struggle to understand the controversy.

The edition I read commences with an author's note. The first sentence provides the basis for the novel: "In August, 1831, in a remote region of southeastern Virginia, there took place the only effective, sustained revolt in the annals of American Negro slavery." This introductory material is concise and concludes with his statement: "it has been my own intention to try to re-create a man and his era, and to produce a work that is less an 'historical novel' in conventional terms than a meditation on history." There is also a more extensive afterward in which he discusses how he came to write the novel, some of the controversy, and his reasoning for some of the positions he took regarding Nat Turner.

Turner was indeed a religious fanatic, and, while Christian, he is not markedly different from the religious fanatics operating elsewhere in the world today. If the controversy had centered on this fanaticism rather than accusing Styron of racism, it might have been more just. However, Turner wasn't killing people because their religion didn't conform to his religious views; he was killing them because whites treated blacks like animals. (The truth is that Turner's reason for his actions is unknown, so my interpretation of this reason stems from reading the novel. This might not be entirely accurate, but I believe it to be a quite reasonable interpretation.)

Apparently, there was dissent regarding a white man writing in the first person of a black man. To me, that is as narrow-minded as asserting that a woman can't write as a man. And then there was the controversy surrounding a black man lusting after a white woman. I didn't perceive it in that way. Turner was celibate. Part of his response to Margaret Whitehead was hatred of being regarded as an animal, not a man. The following perhaps exemplifies both what I found to be superior prose and how Turner's rage could easily surface. He is describing a man with whom he became very close and who typifies how the slaves were reduced to something sub-human by white slave owners.

He had the face one might imagine to be the face of an African chieftain -- soldierly, fearless, scary, and resplendent in its bold symmetry -- yet there was something amiss with the eyes, and the eyes, or at least the expression they often adopted, as now, diminished the face to a kind of harmless, dull, malleable docility. They were the eyes of a child, trustful and dependent, soft doe's eyes mossed over with a kind of furtive, fearful glaze, and as I gazed at them now -- the womanish eyes in the massive, sovereign face mooning dumbly at the rabbit's blood -- I was seized by rage. I heard Cobb fumbling around in the cider press, clinking and clattering. We were out of earshot. "Black toadeater," I said. "snivelin' black toadeatin' white man's bootlickin' scum! You, Hark! Black scum!"

Turner's "Confession" exists. Although Turner could both read and write, this confession was transcribed and written by his defense attorney, Thomas R. Gray. Although Styron questions whether this "confession" might be Gray's interpretation, he concludes that the insurrection occurred as presented in this document. But there is nothing else in the official record or document that reveals Turner's early life or provides further insights into his personality. This is a work of fiction - in my opinion, superb historical fiction.

It is not for everyone. I will refrain from quoting the numerous parts that contemporary readers might find offensive in reference to blacks - and those potentially offensive words are not merely sporadically sprinkled on the pages. Some of it is very raw, but, as such, it feels very historically accurate. To me, it is regrettable that Styron left us so few works of novel-length fiction. I hope to read those that do exist.

This book, which was published in 1967,引发了相当大的争议。从这里和亚马逊上的一些评论来看，这种争议仍在继续。当我开始读这本书时，我对此一无所知，但我读得越多，它就越显得令人不满，甚至不负责任。

一些人将该书出版后的强烈抗议归因于一个简单的事实，即一位弗吉尼亚州的白人作家在试图进入一个19世纪黑人奴隶的内心世界，但这并不是问题所在。这本书可能获得了普利策奖，但对我来说，它有两个主要问题：叙事声音极其不恰当，人物塑造在伦理上也站不住脚。

这本书是由纳特·特纳讲述的，他是一个贫穷且未受过教育的奴隶，在1831年领导了一场针对白人社会的起义。纳特通过学习圣经自学识字。然而，他的叙述风格却令人震惊地高雅：

也许是春天的开始，也许是夏天的结束；季节是什么并不重要，重要的是空气几乎没有季节之分——温和而中性，无风，没有冷热之分。

这是他在第一页的引言。到书的结尾，当他真的试图增强戏剧感时，他写下了这样的话：

我从远方听到，穿过枯萎的夏末草地，牛铃的叮当声仿佛永恒刺穿了我的心，让我突然无法忍受地意识到囚禁岁月的永恒在我面前延伸：很难描述那种宁静的心情，即使在这种嗡嗡作响的疯狂中，当我仿佛在凉爽的雨滴或湍急的水流的祝福下突然沉入以赛亚的梦境时，它会悄悄笼罩着我……

这真的像是一个精神变态、未受过教育的奴隶会说的话吗？对我来说不是。这听起来像是一个受过过度教育的20世纪中产阶级作家。当然，这是虚构的，没有真正的理由为什么斯泰伦不能放弃逼真性，随心所欲地写作——如果写作很美，我可能不会在意。但恐怕我并不觉得它特别美——只是夸大其词，有意识地追求文学性，以至于分散了对故事的注意力。
纳特·特纳的写作风格令人怀疑地像威廉·斯泰伦——在这样一本书中，将作者与角色等同起来尤其令人担忧。从文学问题转向道德问题的是，纳特的文体华丽与其他奴隶的方言讲话形成了对比。不仅其他黑人角色的方言被详细记录下来（甚至到了漫画的程度），而且纳特自己也被要求以最糟糕的方式看待它。

“山药，我带你去那里，小姐，我带你去那里。”我仔细听着。这是最浓重的蓝胶树乡村黑人的谈话，几乎难以理解，一种发育不良的语言，令人难以忍受地结结巴巴，笨拙不堪，带着非洲的湿咕噜声。

这似乎不是一个奴隶同伴的想法，而是他周围那种种族主义的白人社会的想法。这并不是说没有奴隶内化这种种族主义并看不起其他黑人：我相信这种情况发生过。但对于一位作家来说，如此强烈地强调这一元素似乎相当不稳定，再加上斯泰伦自己的写作似乎通过纳特的叙述表达得如此之多，这让作者处于一个略显尴尬的位置。
如果只是语言问题，也许还可以克服，但事实并非如此。在很多方面，纳特被赋予了反解放主义、亲奴隶制激进分子喜欢想象黑人所具有的那种情感。尽管领导了一场奴隶起义，但斯泰伦笔下的纳特·特纳本人却是黑人最强烈的鄙视者。他认为他们是“一群蓬头垢面、衣衫褴褛的人[……]充满了[……]高亢而无忧无虑的笑声，以及愚蠢的黑人欢呼”——“眼睛瞪得大大的，充满了黑人的轻信”，“汗水从他们黑色的背上闪闪发光地流淌下来，他们所有人都臭气熏天”。
所以在看了这样的几个段落之后，我不禁觉得纳特与作者的认同开始有了不祥的意味。在性方面，这种情况最为令人不安。种族主义活动家过去和现在都喜欢将黑人描绘成性饥渴的人，疯狂地渴望敬畏上帝的白人的妻子和女儿。在这种背景下，将这些冲动完全赋予纳特似乎有些不负责任。我们的叙述者对自己种族的其他人感到厌恶，他沉浸在强奸白人女孩的性幻想中：

在我的想象中，总是有一个无名的白人女孩在我的两腿之间——一个有着金色卷发的年轻女孩[……]当我偷偷溜进木匠店的私人地方释放我压抑的欲望时，是埃米琳小姐那裸露的白色丰满圆润的臀部和腹部对我所有的欲望做出了疯狂的回应，她在我耳边抽泣着“仁慈，仁慈，仁慈”，让我享受了玷污的邪恶、不敬神但又难以言喻的快乐。

同样，我并不是说这些心理动态从未发生过，只是说以一种平衡的方式来表现它们是一项极其微妙的工作，而我认为斯泰伦没有做到这一点。那么，提出这些批评背后的问题：如果纳特的高雅写作风格更能代表作者而不是角色，那么纳特对种族的不愉快看法是否也可以这样说呢？
这很荒谬，对吧？显然很荒谬。但与此同时，这也不是我想担心的那种问题。斯泰伦的意图可能是要展示奴隶制度是如何使每个人都变得野蛮的，但事实仍然是，他塑造了一个黑人的形象，这个形象会让最令人不快的白人至上主义者感到高兴。这是一个真正的问题。再加上我永远无法相信的写作风格，你就有了为数不多的几本让我，说得温和一点，深感疑虑的书之一。

This was an incredibly powerful book, one that will remain etched in my memory for a very long, long time.

I was recently engrossed in the PBS series on the Abolitionists. In one of the programs, they made a passing mention of the slave uprising led by Nat Turner. Wait? Nat Turner? Isn't that the name of one of the books on Time's 100 Best Novels list? Yes indeed. I had never before heard the story of Nat Turner. My curiosity was instantly piqued, and I promptly moved The Confessions of Nat Turner to the top of my reading queue.

Before commencing my reading, I scoured the reviews here on Good Reads. I quickly became aware that there was a significant uproar over the story. Styron had fictionalized Nat's tale. Okay, that happens quite frequently. What's the big fuss about? When I went to the library to check out the book, I discovered it in the FICTION section. Isn't that a clear indication that this is not non-fiction? And while all of this was unfolding, the news was rife with similar stories. Historians wanted the movie Lincoln altered to correct historical inaccuracies... because... I don't know, perhaps someone might think it's a documentary? Politicians wanted parts of Zero Dark Thirty changed as they claimed it was not accurate. Again, it's just a movie! Then there was the Manly Library in Sydney that humorously announced they were moving Lance Armstrong's books to the fiction category. I once had a rather heated argument with my Dad over the movie The Last Temptation of Christ. He simply couldn't fathom the concept of a metaphor. Sigh.

So, what's a girl to do? Well, this girl read Styron's novel as if it was precisely that - a novel. Shocking, I know! Seriously, I approached it as fiction. But I also requested the actual confessions (or rather the historical version) of Nat Turner from the library. Enough of that digression.

There are those who firmly believe in the infallible righteousness of the United States, yet our country's narrative has some truly dark and disturbing chapters. Perhaps no chapter is darker than the era in which humans could legally be held in bondage and treated as mere 3/5ths of a human being.

The story is told from the first-person perspective, and I found it to be deeply personal and engaging. With each page I turned, I felt as if I was right beside Nat, listening intently to the account of his religious fanaticism and the ever-growing rage that simmered within him. Oh, the rage! I could sense it in my very bones... yet my 21st-century privilege made me wish that Nat would back down. Live your life as an example, Nat, not as an excuse.

This is a beautifully crafted and incredibly powerful novel. Nat (the fictional Nat) will undoubtedly stay with me for a very long, long time.

I think I'm on the verge of giving up on Pulitzers. I've come across so many of them now that possess very few redeeming qualities and are just abysmal reads. So, here are "The Confessions of Jennifer Hughes":

Section 1: Hmm. It seems like a really captivating novel based on true historical events of the only effective, sustained revolt in the history of American slavery. I'm inclined to rate it 4 or perhaps 3 stars.

Section 2: The confusing, circular method of story-telling is really starting to wear on me. I'm rapidly losing interest. It's now down to 2 stars.

Section 3: Aagh! The horrifying, gruesome, and nasty details are just too much. Quick, skim! Eek, just skip to Section 4! It's now a mere 1 star!

Section 4: It's poignant. I do feel for the real man Nat Turner, but I want to avoid any future contact with author William Styron!

If you're seeking an outstanding book on slavery in America, I highly recommend reading Roots; it's truly fabulous. You can save yourself 428 pages and instead read this Wikipedia entry about the real Nat Turner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Turner

DNF, also known as Dungeon Fighter Online, is a popular online role-playing game.

It offers a vast and immersive gaming world filled with various dungeons, challenging quests, and exciting battles.

Players can choose from a wide range of character classes, each with its unique skills and abilities.

As they progress through the game, they can level up their characters, obtain better装备, and form teams with other players to take on even more difficult challenges.

The game features stunning graphics and smooth gameplay, making it a favorite among gamers worldwide.

Whether you are a casual gamer or a hardcore enthusiast, DNF has something to offer for everyone.

So, if you are looking for an exciting and engaging online gaming experience, give DNF a try and see for yourself why it has become such a popular game.