I remember vividly reading Sophie’s Choice and being unable to contain my laughter, a reaction that was quite unprecedented for me while reading a book. The same thing happened when Styron made Nat Turner speak in a manner that seemed like a groveling sycophant before a white master just for appearances. Out of sheer curiosity, I delved into a book of essays written by black scholars. To my surprise, every single one of them was severely critical of the book. Their main concern appeared to be that Styron was appropriating a major black historical figure for the purposes of fiction. This, they argued, gave the writer the license to take liberties, which in turn distorted the truth and disseminated the apocryphal as fact.

This whole situation got me wondering: Is this the first time a historical figure was placed front and center in a novel? I racked my brain but couldn't think of any examples. However, as soon as I mention Shakespeare, it becomes clear that what Styron has done isn't something that should be completely excoriated.

The novelist has only one obligation: to combine the elements of fiction to create a harmonious whole within the confines of a novel. It doesn't really matter if Styron's Nat Turner isn't an exact replica of what Nat Turner was really like or if the fictional world Styron has created doesn't closely resemble antebellum Virginia. Historical accuracy isn't the novelist's primary concern; artistic integrity is. Shakespeare depicts Brutus as the noblest Roman of them all, while Dante portrays him as a treacherous double crosser. Is Dante's portrayal wrongheaded? Is Shakespeare's? One of the two may be historically inaccurate, but both are artistically sound.

Fiction is fiction and truth is truth, but it seems that they do intersect from time to time. Styron's Nat Turner relies on his religious faith to justify the massacre he plans and executes. The words that stem from Turner's faith are logical, powerful, and moving, making one wonder about impressionable minds that are exposed to radical Islam today. In fact, I would bet that it's a similar dynamic at work. Using religion as his linchpin, one articulate, charismatic man sways the minds of the many who can't speak or act for themselves. Styron hits the nail on the head when it comes to the psychological truth behind this dynamic, and it makes for a truly riveting reading experience.

The story turns out to be very interesting but it has been impossible for me to finish it.

It is extremely slow, repeats a great deal, and relegates the main story to the background when it is the most interesting part. While it is true that it attempts to explain why the slaves' aggression towards the white masters occurred, I think it has gone too far in trying to find an argument that somehow excuses the violent act. However, personally, I didn't need so many excuses, so much filler.

I didn't finish it as it seemed very burdensome and heavy to me. When the motives and the story that are known and understood from the very first pages, without all that noise, it would have been much cleaner.

I found most of the book to be an interesting examination of what might have occurred - which is precisely what the author claims it to be.

The theory suggesting that Nat Turner was interested in white women seemed rather incredible to me. It's difficult for me to believe that at the end, he was highly interested in or sympathetic towards anyone white. However, I can understand Styron's reasoning for including that element.

From a narrative perspective, it was a satisfying way to explain why the only actual victim at Turner's hands was a white woman and why he allowed (at least in this interpretation) a white woman to escape and warn the other plantations of the danger, enabling them to arm themselves and be prepared for the attack that ultimately halted the movement.

It's a romantic, odd, and overly psychological interpretation of events, but since this is a novelization, Styron has the right to present it this way. Unlike some other reviewers I've read here, I don't think Styron in any way attempted to excuse the South for slavery. He simply points out that different slaveowners had varying levels of comfort with the situation and that the economy of the South was reliant on slaves, which any account of that period would reveal. The sympathetic slaveowners are depicted alongside the brutal ones and everything in between.

Actual rating: 2.5 stars.

This is the original "Confessions of Nat Turner." It's not the 1967 William Styron novel but a 24-page summary of an interview with the actual Nat Turner. It was written by Thomas R. Gray, a lawyer looking to profit from the sensation caused by one of the few slave uprisings in the American South.

In August 1831, Nat Turner, starting with six accomplices, led a short-lived revolt near Southampton, Virginia. Beginning in the dark of night, Turner and his group went house to house, murdering white farmers and slave owners, many while they slept. As more slaves joined along the way, Turner's army grew to 60 men. Over the next 36 hours, they killed 10 men, 14 women, and 31 infants and children. By noon on Tuesday, August 23, white militias had defeated the revolt, killing, capturing, and dispersing Turner's army. Turner himself eluded capture for several weeks. Once caught, he was quickly tried, convicted, and hanged. Gray, who represented Turner at his trial, conducted the interview with Turner in jail and then published his pamphlet.

Gray claims to quote Nat Turner extensively, but it's difficult to determine whether the words we read are his or Turner's. Gray didn't use quotation marks, and sentences that are clearly Gray's judgments are mixed with sentences supposedly spoken by Turner. It's not an enjoyable read. Turner, an educated slave who could read and write and was a minister to his fellow slaves, had been strange since childhood and believed his "revolution" was directed by God. The actual uprising was nothing more than a killing spree, depressingly squalid and cruel, and there is really no message in Turner's confession. There was no plan and no hope of success.

My interest in the original jailhouse interview was aroused by a reference to the original book being banned in southern states. I haven't been able to find contemporary reports of the book's banning, only modern references here and there, but it's not hard to understand what was happening. It is known that after Turner's uprising, several states passed laws making it illegal to teach slaves to read and write. Although Turner's failed revolt ended hopes of abolition in the South, it spurred abolition movements in the North and contributed to the polarization of the nation, a split that ultimately led to the Civil War. In this context, it's easy to see why authorities in the South would want to suppress "The Confessions of Nat Turner." No doubt, as always, the banning of the book made it a huge success, filling the lawyer Thomas R. Gray's pockets.