It seems to me that people, including the author, often willfully oversimplify this novel in a way that makes it easy to vilify and dismiss.

Undoubtedly, Styron ventured into some troubling territory by choosing to adopt a first-person perspective to write about an important historical black figure like Nat Turner. The problem was, in part, that so little was known about Turner. For a white author to take on the task of exposing or creating his persona was a supreme act of white coloniality. In such circumstances, how could Styron not present Nat Turner's interior self with white experience, bias, and prejudice? And Styron made matters worse in his afterward by pretending that the choices he made were based on "logical" deductions that linked the few facts left to modern readers about Nat Turner from historical records. Pretending that this novel was an objective, scientific act of forensic journalism seems dishonest to me.

I believe it is a different kind of mistake to view Styron as crafting the novel as an apology, atonement, and absolution for chattel slavery. Although he portrays some members of white households as sympathetic and (to a degree) innocent, this shouldn't be taken as a further attempt to characterize Nat Turner as pathologically violent. Instead, it seems like a more productive way to look at this characterization of some whites is to acknowledge how they had passively normalized the inhumanity of slavery due to its systemic and essential connection to their way of life. The acceptance of something as normal seems to coincide with a kind of naïve innocence that doesn't always have anything to do with one's essential morality and nature. What I mean is that for Styron to choose to portray some whites as innocent is not the same as saying they were without blame or not complicit in the institution of slavery. Surely they were, just as we are today, to the extent that institutions governing the continuance of "normal" life are possible only because of the legacy of slavery. In this light, the tendency toward the normalization of slavery could and should seem like provocation enough for disruption, in this case through violence.

It is still another kind of mistake to look back on this novel merely as a form of art and craft for which the author can be fondly regarded as a masterful prose stylist. I think he was. The writing in the novel is rich, engaging, and full of metaphoric meaning. But that can't be the only basis on which the novel stands.

In his blurb for the book, James Baldwin wrote that this novel took on the challenge of writing our "common history," which has a way of sounding like resolution: at last, a common history we can all get behind. This, too, feels like a mistake because that common history is really just something that all of us have in common, and it's not something that we necessarily apprehend with a common interpretation. That common history is complicated, and people care about it in different ways, but we are all commonly implicated in it, and it is really our duty to try to appreciate how that common history is meaningful to ourselves and others.

Does Styron do a good job with this task, at least as I claim to understand it? Not really. His own comments suggest to me that the purpose of creating grounds for understanding a shared history was somewhat distant from his intentions. Were his intentions good? Sure, yes, I think so. But good intentions can have bad consequences, especially if we don't examine our intentions well enough from the start.

A truly powerful and insightful book. It is dark, and at times, it can be extremely difficult to read.

It strikes at the very core of something that we are constantly living with, yet often fail to perceive. Perhaps it is because we are simply too deeply immersed in it.

The portrait of the eponymous character is truly unique and unforgettable. Styron's portrayal of this particular slice of life in 1800s rural Virginia, with the Civil War still a distant event, is incisive and feels completely inhabited. It is a remarkable feat of world building that is rarely achieved. He claims that his understanding of that world is far from magisterial, but I can't think of many who have a better one.

I'm sure that much more could be said about all the political and historical arguments that surround this book. And his afterward, I think, is a useful introduction in this regard. But most importantly, I believe, is the intense impression that his story and characters create of the practical, lived nature of slavery, its moral and social ramifications at the time, and its indelible effects on the structure of the American economy and society. I would highly recommend this book.

The Confessions of Nat Turner by William Styron is a remarkable work. It's a courageous, visceral, and beautifully written tale that goes beyond the transcribed historical narrative of Nat Turner. Despite being incomplete, it transforms the skeletal background details into a memorable story of the 1831 slave rebellion in Southampton, Virginia.

The book has received both negative and positive commentary. African-American writers have criticized it, while scholars like John Hope Franklin and James Baldwin have praised it. Baldwin even said Styron might have been the best writer dealing with the black experience if he hadn't already. Styron's grandmother owned slaves, and Baldwin's grandparents were slaves, creating an odd linkage to their interest in slavery and race relations.

Nat Turner, the main character, is a complex figure. He's a literate slave who loves his mother and is raised as a "house slave." He witnesses his mother's rape and her death at a young age. Benjamin Turner, his owner, debates the evils of slavery and predicts its end with the invention of machines. When Benjamin dies, his brother Samuel helps Nat become a carpenter and paves the way for his emancipation. However, an economic depression dashes Nat's hopes, and he is passed around to different owners.

Nat develops a passion for the Bible and a relationship with Margaret Whitehead, a young white girl. He is known as "Rev. Turner" and plans a violent insurrection. His story has similarities to that of a Christ figure. After the insurrection fails, he feels forsaken by God.
The novel is told through flashbacks after Nat's trial and confession to Thomas Gray. It uses the voices of a slave and a liberated African-American. Some black readers are sensitive to Nat's interest in Margaret Whitehead. The question remains: why did Nat set in motion a bloody insurrection?
Styron's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel contains many lyrical passages, such as Nat's attempt to envision the ocean. The Confessions of Nat Turner was published 50 years ago in a time of great transition in America. Styron defended his vision of Nat Turner, calling it a "meditation on history."
Remarkably, in 1960, before Styron started writing the novel, James Baldwin lived at his Roxbury home. They had long discussions about race and current events. The novel continues to be relevant today, at least for the author. There is an excellent biography of Styron by James L. West III, William Styron: A Life.

Had I not set myself the challenge of reading all the Pulitzer Prize winners from my lifetime, I might not have picked up this book. Without that challenge, I might not have finished it. Having done so, I’m glad I did, but I didn’t always enjoy the ride.

The novel is a fictional account of the real leader of an 1831 slave rebellion. This rebellion led to the deaths of some five dozen white people (the figures differ) and at least twice as many Black people, both during the rebellion, by subsequent executions, and by extra-judicial killings.

What troubled me about the book? It wasn't that it was by a white author. I think it’s legitimate for an author to imaginatively inhabit any character, no matter how different. Styron wasn't obligated to flatten Turner into an unambiguously heroic figure either. And of course, not every protagonist needs to be loveable. But Nat Turner the character is not particularly endearing, and he is more flawed than many. He identifies himself early on as an unapologetic murderer (though it gets complicated in the book). Raised as a house-servant, a bit of a pet to the Turner family, and one of the few enslaved people with even minimal literacy, he is often arrogant and condescending towards others, both white and Black. Sometimes he is even racist towards Blacks, though he sympathizes with their plight. There's an interesting irony when he says, “Black folk ain’t goin’ to be free . . . less’n they studies to love they own selves” while he disdains most Black folk. He hates pretty much all whites, which goes without saying, but that's also an oversimplification. All this makes for a complex character with whom it's difficult to identify.

As the book progresses, it becomes an exploration of the psychology of hatred. We learn that Nat was treated with relative kindness by his last master, Joseph Travis, but he had no regrets about killing Travis and his entire family, including an infant. For Styron’s Nat Turner, familiarity with white people breeds contempt. He says things like, “Real hatred of the sort of which I speak . . . is not common to all Negroes. . . . Without knowing the white man at close hand, a negro can only pretend hatred.” And later, “Does it seem a hopeless paradox that the less toilsome became the circumstances of my life the more I ached to escape it? That the more tolerable and humane white people became in their dealings with me the keener was my passion to destroy them?” In other words, no “kindness” justifies enslavement, and developing “useful skill” doesn't lessen the fundamental injustice and hatred.

The implications of the novel’s title also develop as the novel progresses. Early on, Nat is asked to dictate his “confession.” The initial meaning is legal, but Nat insists it's not a matter of “confessing his _sins_.” Instead, it's more like a justification or call to arms. By the end, as Nat’s execution nears, “confession” takes on more of the sense of a last “confession of sins,” and his attitudes towards his victims are more nuanced.

Finally, anyone who has read other Styron books will not be surprised that this one is superb stylistically. The book is full of vivid descriptions like, “It was a Saturday, one of those dusty, ocherous autumnal days whose vivid weather never again seems so sweet and inviting after that youthful time of discovery: wood smoke and maple leaves blazing in the trees, an odor of apples everywhere like a winy haze, squirrels scampering for chinquapins at the edge of the woods, a constant stridor of crickets among the withering grass, and over all a ripe sunny heat edged with feathery gusts of wind smelling of charred oak and winter.”

I know a great piece of writing when I read it, but a five-star book for me is one that not only I admire but also gives me pleasure as I read and that I have trouble putting down. This one was too much of a struggle for that, so I gave it a 4-star rating.

This remarkable novel presents a harrowing and agonizing portrayal of the institution of slavery. It delves deep into the mind and perspective of Nat Turner, vividly explaining the events and circumstances surrounding the 1831 slave revolt in southeastern Virginia.

The author's masterful storytelling and attention to detail make it impossible not to be deeply affected by the narrative. I have found myself constantly reflecting on the powerful themes and emotions presented in this book.

It serves as a poignant reminder of the atrocities and injustices that occurred during the era of slavery. The vivid descriptions and the exploration of Nat Turner's thoughts and motivations add a layer of authenticity and depth to the story.

This book has truly left an indelible mark on my mind, and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in understanding the complex history of slavery and the struggles of those who fought against it.

The Nat Turner Rebellion had a tragic and morally ambiguous aspect. Most of its white victims were relatively unoffending. They included women and children, and among the women was one of the rare whites who had shown kindness to Turner, yet he himself killed her.

Mr. Styron reveals that this should carry little weight with us, just as it did with the black rebels. Slavery in the American South was so obscenely evil that it tainted everyone in its orbit, regardless of skin color, turning morality upside down and depriving the words "innocent" and "guilty" of meaning.

For those who wish to better understand this and the roots of racism still plaguing our country, it is necessary to know at least a little about what life was like as a piece of human chattel, no different from an animal to be bought and sold. I would recommend four books: Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave; Twelve Years a Slave by Solomon Northup; "Beloved" by Toni Morrison; and The Confessions. These books will take you to places you don't want to go but must if you consider yourself to have even a shred of social conscience and if "slavery" is more than just a word to you.

This was truly an extremely difficult book to peruse.

I had delved into a great deal of the controversies swirling around it, and I felt a sense of obligation to myself to see it with my own eyes.

Indeed, at certain moments, the writing voice comes across as that of an educated white man envisioning what he believes a black slave in the 19th Century might speak like. At other times, he seems suspiciously literate, if such a thing can be said.

The Nat presented by Styron is completely and utterly insane. To attempt to read anything more complex into him is to overly complicate the story. But people, please...

It's a novel. Granted, it is set around historical events, but events for which there is so very little actual, unbiased factual literature that Styron has to, and he states this outright in the beginning, invent most of what is here. It's a period piece, not a biography. That's precisely why it's on the Fiction shelves...

Truth be told, I was going to award it either five stars or one. There was nothing in between. When I put it down, I thought "wow". Love it for the story, or loathe it for its lack of... I don't know, lack of political correctness? I know I'll remember it and I know it made me ponder about the institution of slavery.

So it receives five stars, but it isn't for everyone.

It is a truly powerful and engaging novel. However, when it was first published, it faced strong criticism from many younger black intellectuals. The reason for this was that the novel seemed to rely on black stereotypes and presented a rather sympathetic portrayal of wealthier planters. This was a significant flaw that could not be ignored.

Despite these faults, Styron did manage to portray slavery as an institution system. He showed that the evils of slavery were so great that they could only be slightly mitigated by the actions of well-intentioned individual slave owners. This was an important point to make, as it highlighted the systemic nature of slavery and the limitations of individual action.

Another major theme of the novel was the failings of Christianity. Styron explored how Christianity could be used as a tool of oppression (through hypocrisy or fanaticism) rather than a force for good. This was a thought-provoking exploration of a complex and often controversial topic. Overall, while the novel had its flaws, it was still a powerful and important work that offered valuable insights into the history of slavery and the role of Christianity in that history.

I didn't even have to think about awarding this book 5 stars.

The writing is powerful, the characters are powerful, and the themes are powerful; this is precisely what great literature should be.

I regard the controversy surrounding this book as a testament to its excellence.

I won't bother to provide a synopsis of the plot. However, I will state that it presents a painful and depressing perspective on the institution of slavery and its impact on both white and black people, creating subhuman roles for both races.

I'm glad that I finally managed to read this novel, thanks to my GR group, "On the Southern Literary Trail".

This book not only makes us think about the dark history of slavery but also shows us the complexity of human nature and the importance of understanding and empathy.

It is a must-read for anyone interested in literature and history.

Overall, I highly recommend this book.

The book had a slow start, but it gradually got better.

However, it managed to earn an extra star due to the "afterword". This particular book received critical acclaim and even won a Pulitzer.

William Styron was actually awarded an honorary degree from Wilberforce, an all-black college.

But as the fight for civil rights started to turn more militant, Styron faced criticism and was shamed for the way he developed the characterization of Nat Turner.

This was indeed a good read, but an even more fascinating story is the tumultuous events that occurred as a consequence of the novel.

These events added another layer of complexity and significance to the already engaging narrative, making it a topic of great interest and discussion.

The controversy surrounding the novel not only shed light on the sensitive issue of race and civil rights but also showed the power of literature to引发 strong emotions and reactions.

It serves as a reminder that art can have a profound impact on society and that the choices made by authors in creating their works can have far-reaching consequences.

Overall, the book and the events it sparked offer a rich and thought-provoking exploration of an important period in American history.

I won't really delve into the question of whether Styron, as a wealthy white man, has the right to tell the story of the black slave, Nat Turner. Nor will I engage with those who cry foul about the historical accuracy of these "Confessions". Those who obsess over such matters are missing the essence of this work.

To the extent that the "point" is evident (which it isn't necessarily), Styron seems to have aimed to explore the true story of a captivating event in the history of American slavery. He uses it to describe and illuminate the life and culture of that era, as well as the psychological processes of a slave living in the midst of that dark period of US history.

The author makes no claims to absolute historical accuracy. In fact, in a very straightforward introduction, he states that most of what is written is speculation.

I judge this novel solely based on how it conveys its message and the impression it leaves on me. On those grounds, I easily award it 5 stars.

What does it convey? Well, it mainly shows how horrible and degrading life was for slaves. The black characters in this book are treated with such sub-human indifference that they themselves start to believe in their less-than-human status. Nat begins to show open contempt for the less educated slaves, not out of any racist hatred but because they have accepted the popular white notion of their inferiority. Nat, having accidentally achieved a slightly better living condition, has a unique perspective, complete with literacy and a modest dignity that he reluctantly gives up in certain social situations.

The most astonishing thing I discovered while reading was that not all the white characters were slave-driving villains. Many of the white characters are quite sympathetic in their liberal beliefs that slaves could potentially be educated and elevated to a higher status. Indeed, it is through such a benefactor that Nat acquires his education. However, rather than creating a dichotomy between "good" and "bad" white people, it merely creates a burdensome grey area, as even the sympathetic white characters do little to advance the cause of emancipation. After the massacre he instigates is over, this fictional Nat seems to regret only one of the killings, that of a beautiful young white girl who treated him with great kindness and respect. But even she treated Nat more like a pet than a human being.

It is easy to understand how a black man from the 1830s would harbor such vengeance in his heart after being given the opportunity to take an honest and raw look at the situation as it was. The magic of this book is that William Styron leads the reader through these thought processes and shows how the heroic and religious Nat Turner could arrive at the conclusions he did.

Finally, after reading this work, as well as the rather fascinating "The Bondwoman's Narrative" (a novel written by an actual escaped slave in the 1860s), and seeing how deeply ingrained slavery and its racist justifications were in popular thinking, it is almost impossible to imagine how we, as a society, managed to break free from it. No wonder that 150 years later, there are still dormant biases lurking just beneath the surface.

Is this book historically accurate? Only to the extent that Nat Turner was a real person, he led a real rebellion, and he killed real people. Does that diminish the power of this novel? No. "The Confessions of Nat Turner" is an enlightening read that sheds light on a very dark aspect of our national past. I'm very glad I read it.

EDIT after reading reviews on Goodreads:

Get the f outta town all y'all saying the homoerotic parts of this book are what emasculates Nat Turner's character. ACTUALLY, sexuality is helluv complicated and fluid. It is true and sometimes goes double in constrained life contexts, even really masculine ones like wars, enslavement, and sports. It's pretty sick to read childhood sexual experimentation in a life with almost unlimited lack of privacy & freedom as anything except bravery. Ugh I hate when there's lots to critique about a book and people focus on the best, most complex, parts. Get outta town.

I am stoked to read the criticism of this, which I learned of in Styron's reaction to the criticism in the afterward. So, without having read the critiques, my personal reaction was that this was so good. I'd read the actual Nat Turner's confessions almost a decade ago and have always wondered about the gaps within the narrative, the how and why, and the why successful rebellion was so rare and so crushed. I am fascinated by trauma, too, and the intergenerational trauma of oppression, internalized oppression, and the psychological and structural things that limit or inspire revolt, limit & inspire solidarity vs competition.

I found the playful way that Styron crafted a fictional character and world based on the short but so intense Narrative was both fair and clearly agenda-driven. I liked the agenda: exploring inner turmoil and conflict around sexuality and self-control, and especially the way he painted the evils of the \\"good\\" situations and how (as is true in history) it is so often the lessening of repression that allows for revolt to break out and grow. There's a basic level of propaganda in that choice, but it's propaganda I am down with. I like that narrative in his contemporary early Civil Rights context, though it's an entirely different propaganda choice than creating a Black Power Nat Turner, which is probably one closer to the truth.

I kind of hated, though also loved, Sophie's Choice because of the casual way Styron toyed with sexual violence and intimate partner abuse, using them as props for a bigger psychological story. Perhaps similar themes are here in Nat Turner. Certainly the dehumanizing of uneducated enslaved people is taken beyond the bias of the narrator and used as a casual plot point, essentially saying only one with the education and \\"big house\\" privilege of Turner could possibly dream up, plot, and execute a rebellion. That's a lazy way to draw uniqueness in Nat Turner. I liked the book for its use of this story to explore complex sexuality and inner turmoil of righteous violence. It's not history but I recommend it. Obvi read the real Confessions first.