As it could not be otherwise, in a book by William Styron, this novel is superbly written, and the author's style is impeccable.

However, I didn't like it: it didn't hook me, I didn't empathize with any of the characters, and it didn't move me in the least. Which is almost incredible to me from the writer who moved me to the core and is the author of one of my favorite novels: "Sophie's Choice".

In contrast, in my opinion, "The Confessions of Nat Turner" is a formally impeccable book (notable, even), but it lacks a soul, hence it left me so cold.

I will not enter into evaluating the entire controversy surrounding this book, about whether it is racist or not, because I think that Styron himself in the epilogue he wrote for the 25th anniversary of the novel explains more than enough what his motivations were and what he feels about it... and in my opinion, racism is conspicuous by its absence. Nevertheless, I also understand that the narration may discomfort some people because it is crude on many occasions.

Be that as it may, for me the problem has not been the lack of absolute harmony with the book, but rather that, simply, it has not managed to convey anything to me.

I remain, light-years away, with "Sophie's Choice".

My initial gut reaction to The Confessions of Nat Turner was something along the lines of wow, holy f---, this is brilliant. However, when I started looking through some of the contemporary reviews, I was rather taken aback. There were historians who thought Styron's portrayal of a slave revolt in the 1830s was "psychologically sick" and "morally senile", and who even accused Styron himself of possessing a "vile racist imagination".

Oh no.

After giving it some thought, here's what I think. One way to approach the long and angry controversy surrounding The Confessions of Nat Turner is to start with a few fundamental questions: Why do historical novels exist? What are they for? Why read them? etc.

One possible answer is that the main value of a historical novel lies in bringing people and moments from history to life. Historical novels fill in the gaps that non-fiction cannot, by adding thoughts, texture, and moments of humanity to the known facts. If this is what one is seeking, then it is of utmost importance that the novelist gets those facts right – or at least justifies any liberties taken.

But not everyone subscribes to this view of the historical novel. Georg Lukacs, for instance, argued that it didn't matter if historical novels adhered strictly to the known facts. "On the contrary," Lukacs wrote, "the novelist must be at liberty to treat these as he likes, if he is to reproduce the much more complex and ramifying totality with historical faithfulness."

This is all from Lukacs' book, The Historical Novel. He further contended that "the writer's relation to historical reality – be he playwright or novelist – can be no different in principle from his relation to reality as a whole." A historical novel isn't supposed to be history rewritten with a novelist's tools; it's a novel written using historical material.

I'm bringing this up because it seems that many critics over the years have accused William Styron of writing bad history in The Confessions of Nat Turner. Whereas Styron believed he was following Lukacs' advice. And this seems to be a crucial distinction.

So, here are some known facts. The real Nat Turner was a talented black man who led a slave revolt in southern Virginia in 1831, killing 55 white people before he was finally captured, interrogated, and hanged. The only evidence we have about his life comes from a brief 21-page "confession" that Turner dictated to a white lawyer in the days before his execution. However, the lawyer's recollections of Turner may be unreliable.

Styron took this meager material and set about reimagining Turner's life – his upbringing, his life as a slave, and what led him to commit mass murder. The liberties Styron took with Turner's life enraged critics. One of the earliest detractors was Lerone Bennett Jr., who catalogued the distortions in an October 1968 issue of Ebony. For example:

-- In the novel, Turner has an infatuation with a white teenage girl that only exacerbates his hatred of whites in general, even though there is no historical evidence to suggest that this affair ever took place. Many critics believed that Styron's invention played on long-standing racist stereotypes and fears of black sexuality.

-- In the novel, Turner's mother is a complacent house slave, whereas there is evidence to suggest that in real life, she was vehemently anti-slavery.

-- In the novel, Nat Turner's rebellion is ultimately stopped by other black slaves who fight for their masters. Styron seems to be fascinated by the idea that other black men were the reason Turner failed. But there is no historical basis for this.

And so on.

For Bennett, these distortions were a serious offense. "Instead of following the traditional technique of the historical novelist, who works within the framework of accepted facts," he wrote, "Styron forces history to conform to the pattern of his preconceived ideas." You can find similar analyses of the novel in the New York Review of Books here.

One thing to note is that these critics are debating history, not fiction, not the purposes of novels or the uses of the imagination. They are arguing that Styron's novel failed to bring the real Nat Turner to life – or at least, the "proper" Nat Turner. Scholars have been attempting to claim Nat Turner for various purposes for years, and Styron was seen as hindering this process.

The reaction from novelists was different. James Baldwin, for one, famously admired Styron's novel: "The book meant something to me because it was a white Southern writer's attempt to grapple with something that was tormenting and frightening him," Baldwin said. "I respect him very much for that."

Baldwin wasn't even certain that the book had been executed perfectly. He admitted that Styron's attempt to see things from Turner's perspective "may have been a great error." But Baldwin was interested in seeing how a white man from the South – whose own grandmother had owned two slave girls in the 1850s and bitterly lamented their emancipation by the Union Army – would confront the "complex and ramifying totality" of slavery.

Bennett, on the other hand, was less understanding on this point: "Styron is writing for his very life, putting up smoke screen after smoke screen to hide himself from the truth of the American experience," he wrote in Ebony.

I'm not actually sure who is right, Bennett or Baldwin. Sorry. What I can offer, albeit weakly, is that this is a beautifully written book. Here are a few random snippets:

able to emit without effort peals of jolly, senseless laughter.

dreams of giant black angels striding amid a spindrift immensity of stars.

deafened as a little boy by a blow to the skull from a drunken overseer, he had since heard only thumps and rustlings.

there lurked in his heart a basic albeit leaden decency

grasshoppers stitched and stirred in restless fidget among the grass

Beautiful writing isn't always sufficient, but it would be a pity to overlook it.

Nat Turner was a negro preacher and an educated slave who was born and raised in Virginia.

He firmly believed that he had been divinely ordained by God to fight for a just cause and initiate an insurrection against the abhorrent horrors of slavery.

This is a fictionalized account of his story, narrated by Turner himself as he lies shackled in his cell, awaiting his execution.

When this novel was released in 1967, there was widespread controversy surrounding it. America was in a state of revolt at that time due to civil rights issues, and having a white southerner write this story caused an uproar.

I cannot address those allegations with any authority, but I found this to be a profound and ambitious examination of a man's struggle against injustice.

Although he did not achieve the results he hoped for and many people were brutally killed, I believe this work planted the seeds that led to the events that occurred thirty years later.

This was my first book by Styron, and I was truly impressed by his vision and his writing craft.

This was an incredible book!

It took me on a journey like no other. The story was so engaging that I couldn't put it down. The characters were well-developed and came to life on the pages. The author's writing style was captivating and made me feel as if I was right there in the middle of the action.

I was completely immersed in the world that the author had created. Every detail was carefully crafted, from the settings to the dialogue. It was a truly remarkable reading experience.

I would highly recommend this book to anyone who loves a good story. It will leave you breathless and wanting more.

Published in 1967, this book is a captivating work of historical fiction.

It delves into a real slave revolt that occurred in 1831.

It's important not to mistake it for the non-fiction book, The Confessions of Nat Turner by Nat Turner himself, as related to his court-appointed legal representative, Thomas Gray.

This document is referenced within Styron's book and served as valuable source material.

In fact, Gray is a character in this novel.

The story is told in the first person from the perspective of Nat Turner, who vividly describes the violence and the events that led up to it.

It also explores religion and mental illness as contributing factors.

However, for me, reading this book was a bit of a struggle.

It took me forever to get through it as it simply didn't hold my attention.

Perhaps it was the brutally honest content that made it difficult for me to engage.

I could only force myself to read a few pages at a time.

Overall, it was an okay read, but I'm relieved to have finally finished it.

I read what I believe was the 25th anniversary edition of a book. At the end of the book, there was an additional "look back" by the author.

It was truly fascinating as it detailed his thought process when making certain decisions. There were instances where there were gaps in the historical record, or when something that seemed contrary to the record might be more suitable for the purposes of his novel.

I refrain from going into details to avoid spoiling too much. However, some of his choices didn't quite seem to align with the overall image I was forming. As it transpired, at least one was a conscious decision to deviate from what was known.

The writing style was engaging, although a bit on the long side. I will definitely consider reading more works by this author. I'm curious to know how the African American community views this work currently, given that some time has elapsed since the publication of this edition.

It would be interesting to see if there have been any changes in their perception or if new interpretations have emerged.

This edition provides a unique perspective on the author's创作 process and leaves room for further exploration and discussion.

This account seems to be far more the work of Thomas R. Gray than of Nat Turner.

I noticed the strange phrase, "work of death" repeated several times throughout the document. It first appeared in Gray's introduction, then a few more times in what was attributed to Turner's confession, and again at the end by Gray. Gray, who was Turner's supposed lawyer, never seemed very sympathetic towards him.

Another odd phrase attributed to Nat Turner was this: "we entered, and murdered Mrs. Reese in her bed, while sleeping; her son awoke, but it was only to sleep the sleep of death, he had only time to say who is that, and he was no more." That entire passage seems like an overly elaborate way for anyone to confess to a murder.

It was also strange that Turner never had anything negative to say about his slave masters. In fact, this confession was rather complimentary towards them. His supposed motivation for killing them was based on religion. He claimed to have seen signs of the apocalypse all over the plantation. Among these signs were symbols in blood droplets on tree leaves. I recognized what these probably were because I also grew up around Virginia. I think they were leaf galls. Leaf galls are bright red, droplet-sized bumps on trees that look almost like blood and are caused by insects.

This document still has value as a historical record, but I don't believe it is accurate to truly attribute these words to Nat Turner.

I absolutely adored this book.

It truly opens your eyes to a vast amount of history that often goes unspoken. Even though it is a fictional account based on a true story, it holds great value.

The author skillfully uses his imagination to fill in the gaps of Nat Turner's life, creating a vivid portrayal that fits perfectly within the context of what slavery was like during that era.

What's remarkable is that he doesn't alter the diary account itself. Instead, he enhances it with his creative interpretations, making the story come alive in a way that engages and educates the reader.

This book is not only a captivating read but also a powerful reminder of the harsh realities of the past and the importance of understanding and learning from history.

It serves as a testament to the author's talent and his ability to bring a lesser-known chapter of history to the forefront.

I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in history, as it offers a unique perspective and a deeper understanding of the experiences of those who lived through slavery.

Overall, it is a must-read that will leave a lasting impression on its readers.

A tremendously talented writer is Styron. His work presents a fascinating portrait of human bondage, madness, and religious fervor gone amok. Although the story is set in the early part of the 19th century in Virginia, it remains very relevant to today's discussions on these topics. The research behind the novel is great, with exquisite detail and stupendous character development. It is truly one of the best "historical" novels I've read, and perhaps my favorite read of the year so far. I am looking forward to reading all of Styron's works. His writing has the power to transport readers to another time and place, while also making them reflect on the human condition in the present day. I believe that Styron's novels will continue to be relevant and engaging for years to come.

I find myself constantly reading reviews and being convinced both ways when it comes to my feelings about this book. It is an extremely uncomfortable and difficult read. The atrocity of slavery is vividly depicted, along with bloodthirstiness.

The portrayal of Nat does give the impression of being a bit racist. This makes me lean towards those who critique William Styron's decision to write this as a white southerner. Additionally, the obsession with a white woman, when in fact Nat had a wife and two kids, seems to be unnecessarily perpetuating stereotypes. However, it is also very thought-provoking on the topics of violence, revenge, and the motivations for violence, which is academically applicable.

This book will likely stay with me in both a stimulating and scarring way. It forces one to confront the harsh realities of history and the complex nature of human behavior. Despite its flaws, it has the power to make us think deeply about important issues.

LOS HECHOS: In August 1831 in the state of Virginia, the only violent slave insurrection against their masters in the history of the United States took place. Led by Nathaniel Turner, a literate slave and self-taught preacher convinced of carrying out a divine mandate, it lasted two days. During this time, about 75 slaves, using the tools and weapons of their own masters, took the lives of 55 people, including women and children. Turner made an extensive confession of the facts to his lawyer at the request of the judges, who wanted to be able to exonerate other rebels to return them to slave labor.

Styron narrates Nat's story in the first person and intelligently begins at the end, when he is awaiting his execution as a consequence of his actions. Just like Capote in "In Cold Blood", he first presents us with the bloody consequences of the rebellion and the public's incredulity at the fact that Nat unleashed such violence against a master perceived as kind in the community. From there, we start to retrace, with the confession as a starting point, Nat's path and understand how his different experiences with masters of the most diverse natures led him to plan his bloody revenge.

Styron published his novel during the civil rights struggle and was highly criticized when the novel was published for having the audacity, as a white writer, to give a voice to a slave. There were voices in the African American community who said that it was a reissue of "Uncle Tom's Cabin". However, Ralph Ellison and James Baldwin came to his defense, which is no small feat. From Beecher Stowe's novel, Styron retains a feature that is, for me, the most interesting: the criticism of well-intentioned whites with high ideals but who never quite committed to emancipation and did more harm by omission than others by action. But if Uncle Tom saw religion as a consolation in the face of injustices, Nat will see in the Bible a divine call to lead the liberation of his people by carrying out an implacable revenge.

This was a difficult read, as any book about the atrocities of slavery will be. The very nature of slavery is so abhorrent that it can be a challenge to confront. What further complicates the reading of this novel is the fact of its author's whiteness. Styron, being white, had to navigate the delicate balance of representing a black historical figure. Additionally, there is the issue of the artistic license that he took in his attempt to grapple with a subject that had tormented him his whole life.

I can't say whether or not Styron was wrong to construct and inhabit the character of Nat Turner, telling his story in the first-person. It's a complex question. However, I truly feel that he wrote with integrity. He made an effort to take away the white gaze that has been the cause of much erasure of black identities in novels by other American white men. He tried to see through Turner's eyes and give voice to his experiences.

It's important to remember that historical novels are, in fact, works of fiction. While I didn't agree with some of the motivations Styron constructed for Turner's bloody rebellion, overall I felt that the novel is a believable account of that disgusting chapter of American history. It provides a glimpse into the mindset and circumstances of that time. This book is an important one and worth reading for those interested in the enigmatic figure of Nat Turner. It offers a unique perspective on a significant moment in American history.