Scan barcode
zena_ryder's review against another edition
4.0
This is a hard book to review, because it's not just a book. It can be evaluated as a piece of fictional literature, but it is also historical fiction and it is written by a white author, in the first person, about a black historical figure, Nat Turner.
What are an author's responsibilities? Is it just to write the best story they can? Do they have responsibilities to the truth when writing historical fiction? And what moral responsibilities do they have when representing politically sensitive people and events?
As a piece of literature, it's easy to review. It was exceptionally well written, with passages that are very beautiful and some very well drawn characters.
As for its historical accuracy, I don't know enough to review confidently, but as far as I know, we don't have much in the way of reliable primary sources regarding Nat Turner. We have his "confessions", which were dictated to and written by one of his white captors and we have newspaper reports written, no doubt, by appalled white journalists catering to a white, slaveholding (or at least slavery endorsing) readership. So we probably just don't know much about Nat Turner, the real person. The major events in the book were, as far as I know, fairly accurately portrayed (but I am open to correction). The book doesn't, however, mention the numerous reprisal killings that whites inflicted on blacks after Turner's revolt (including many who had nothing to do with it). That disturbs me.
As for its political significance, I don't know what to say. Since we don't know much about Turner himself, that means that Styron can largely choose how to portray him and that is a huge responsibility. He was a slave and he led other slaves in a revolt, so in that respect he is heroic. He was deeply religious: was he a crazy religious fundamentalist, or was he simply misguided, or was he a good man taking the only route left open by his situation (and with his belief in God to help justify his actions)? He planned and led the killing of about 60 white people, including children. While we can sympathize with the appalling, desperate circumstances that led him and his followers to do this, the murders are brutal and it's hard for an author to sustain that sympathy. Readers are in the uncomfortable position of condoning brutal murders or criticizing a hero of slave resistance. It's good to make readers uncomfortable — and I'm glad Styron didn't make it easy for his readers — but without knowing more of the facts about the real Turner, and more about the racial significance of certain of Styron's imagined elements (such as Turner's rape fantasies), I really don't know what to think of this book overall.
What are an author's responsibilities? Is it just to write the best story they can? Do they have responsibilities to the truth when writing historical fiction? And what moral responsibilities do they have when representing politically sensitive people and events?
As a piece of literature, it's easy to review. It was exceptionally well written, with passages that are very beautiful and some very well drawn characters.
As for its historical accuracy, I don't know enough to review confidently, but as far as I know, we don't have much in the way of reliable primary sources regarding Nat Turner. We have his "confessions", which were dictated to and written by one of his white captors and we have newspaper reports written, no doubt, by appalled white journalists catering to a white, slaveholding (or at least slavery endorsing) readership. So we probably just don't know much about Nat Turner, the real person. The major events in the book were, as far as I know, fairly accurately portrayed (but I am open to correction). The book doesn't, however, mention the numerous reprisal killings that whites inflicted on blacks after Turner's revolt (including many who had nothing to do with it). That disturbs me.
As for its political significance, I don't know what to say. Since we don't know much about Turner himself, that means that Styron can largely choose how to portray him and that is a huge responsibility. He was a slave and he led other slaves in a revolt, so in that respect he is heroic. He was deeply religious: was he a crazy religious fundamentalist, or was he simply misguided, or was he a good man taking the only route left open by his situation (and with his belief in God to help justify his actions)? He planned and led the killing of about 60 white people, including children. While we can sympathize with the appalling, desperate circumstances that led him and his followers to do this, the murders are brutal and it's hard for an author to sustain that sympathy. Readers are in the uncomfortable position of condoning brutal murders or criticizing a hero of slave resistance. It's good to make readers uncomfortable — and I'm glad Styron didn't make it easy for his readers — but without knowing more of the facts about the real Turner, and more about the racial significance of certain of Styron's imagined elements (such as Turner's rape fantasies), I really don't know what to think of this book overall.
zoracious's review against another edition
1.0
[Review written by my younger self]
Why is a novel that won a Pulitzer Prize in 1967 on my "Hate" list? Author Styron has no question about the important presence his novel has; he states that he is giving readers a fictional presentation of the actual history surrounding our title "character" in 1831. With this, Stryon takes on a certain authorial latitude that can be easily misconstrued with actual history.
I can understand the message Styron wishes to communicate. He presents the historical precursor for the problems and prejudices that haunt urban African-Americans today. But, with this, is it necessary to add his own altering of the actual history of this slave rebellion?
Here are some of the true facts Styron presents either directly or indirectly: 60 white persons killed, 17 perpetrators hung, 12 more sent to Alabama to die in slavery, and 131 free and enslaved Americans killed by a mob. With 220 dead and America's laws at the time becoming increasingly harsh (think of the Fugitive Slave Law), how much more latitude does Styron need to express his point?
With such a novel that uses an actual person and event, how much responsibility does Styron hold to historical accuracy? Many would say that he holds none at all. There is, indeed, the anonymously-written Primary Colors, among others, that takes its own version of history and "tweaks" it for entertainment appeal. So let's consider Styron's purpose? Is it entertainment? In the book's afterword, Styron writes that the real Nat Turner was a person of "conspicuous ghastliness" and "a dangerously religious lunatic". So what does Styron want to do? He wants to change this person of demonic fanaticism with one of "stern piety".
Thus Styron wants to alter this man's personality. With this, the story becomes one of a tortured man who feels that being cut off from God is a fate worse than death. Throughout all his brutal and grotesque violence, he claims himself in the fictional parts of this novel to be a man of God. Has Styron acted responsibly in doing this? More importantly, does this alteration make it easier to swallow this historical event, and should that even be a consideration?
This event is just a small slice of the over 60 million slaves whose lives were lost. What if these and other figures were altered in other historical events? What if the numbers and events were altered regarding the over 12 million lost in the Holocaust? What if authors decide they want to take some authorial license over the recent events in Rwanda, Cambodia, and Kosovo?
I do not discount the fact that the actual historically-accurate circumstances regarding Nat Turner are of great significance today. But can readers benefit from a story that claims to present important history and yet is not wholly accurate? In a book entitled Ten Black Writers Respond, the title persons say that both they and their white counterparts would have better benefited from an unbiased assessment and chronicling of history as it is truly presented. In fact, in one of the most obvious historically-accurate omissions of Nat Turner being married with at least two children, activists and black writers accused Styron of adding firewood to the white racist view that black men are obsessed with white women.
By taking liberties with the story and the man, Styron seemed to brush off the fact that slaves' lives were actually worsened by Nat Turner and his rebellion. The fact that Turner seems almost as prejudiced against field slaves as well as masters is soon overshadowed by the fact that he later becomes a champion of slaves nationwide. Styron overlooks the fact that the real Nat Turner had a wife, and that his last few masters were actually relatively kind in a system of slavery that did not afford many kindnesses.
These overlooked historical facts could have only added to the human complexity that Styron was aiming for. Noting all of these fallbacks, it seems the author was seeking a preposterous self-aggrandizement by claiming unabashedly that his novel is a complete "meditation on history."
As a historical novelist, Styron did not do what historical novelists should do--i.e., investigate the facts. Therefore, Confessions is not an accurate portrayal of Nat Turner, and dangerously takes a controversial figure of race relations and distorts him. Only by presenting true accounts can historical novelists hope to honor and understand the complexity of the past and present this importance to their readers.
Why is a novel that won a Pulitzer Prize in 1967 on my "Hate" list? Author Styron has no question about the important presence his novel has; he states that he is giving readers a fictional presentation of the actual history surrounding our title "character" in 1831. With this, Stryon takes on a certain authorial latitude that can be easily misconstrued with actual history.
I can understand the message Styron wishes to communicate. He presents the historical precursor for the problems and prejudices that haunt urban African-Americans today. But, with this, is it necessary to add his own altering of the actual history of this slave rebellion?
Here are some of the true facts Styron presents either directly or indirectly: 60 white persons killed, 17 perpetrators hung, 12 more sent to Alabama to die in slavery, and 131 free and enslaved Americans killed by a mob. With 220 dead and America's laws at the time becoming increasingly harsh (think of the Fugitive Slave Law), how much more latitude does Styron need to express his point?
With such a novel that uses an actual person and event, how much responsibility does Styron hold to historical accuracy? Many would say that he holds none at all. There is, indeed, the anonymously-written Primary Colors, among others, that takes its own version of history and "tweaks" it for entertainment appeal. So let's consider Styron's purpose? Is it entertainment? In the book's afterword, Styron writes that the real Nat Turner was a person of "conspicuous ghastliness" and "a dangerously religious lunatic". So what does Styron want to do? He wants to change this person of demonic fanaticism with one of "stern piety".
Thus Styron wants to alter this man's personality. With this, the story becomes one of a tortured man who feels that being cut off from God is a fate worse than death. Throughout all his brutal and grotesque violence, he claims himself in the fictional parts of this novel to be a man of God. Has Styron acted responsibly in doing this? More importantly, does this alteration make it easier to swallow this historical event, and should that even be a consideration?
This event is just a small slice of the over 60 million slaves whose lives were lost. What if these and other figures were altered in other historical events? What if the numbers and events were altered regarding the over 12 million lost in the Holocaust? What if authors decide they want to take some authorial license over the recent events in Rwanda, Cambodia, and Kosovo?
I do not discount the fact that the actual historically-accurate circumstances regarding Nat Turner are of great significance today. But can readers benefit from a story that claims to present important history and yet is not wholly accurate? In a book entitled Ten Black Writers Respond, the title persons say that both they and their white counterparts would have better benefited from an unbiased assessment and chronicling of history as it is truly presented. In fact, in one of the most obvious historically-accurate omissions of Nat Turner being married with at least two children, activists and black writers accused Styron of adding firewood to the white racist view that black men are obsessed with white women.
By taking liberties with the story and the man, Styron seemed to brush off the fact that slaves' lives were actually worsened by Nat Turner and his rebellion. The fact that Turner seems almost as prejudiced against field slaves as well as masters is soon overshadowed by the fact that he later becomes a champion of slaves nationwide. Styron overlooks the fact that the real Nat Turner had a wife, and that his last few masters were actually relatively kind in a system of slavery that did not afford many kindnesses.
These overlooked historical facts could have only added to the human complexity that Styron was aiming for. Noting all of these fallbacks, it seems the author was seeking a preposterous self-aggrandizement by claiming unabashedly that his novel is a complete "meditation on history."
As a historical novelist, Styron did not do what historical novelists should do--i.e., investigate the facts. Therefore, Confessions is not an accurate portrayal of Nat Turner, and dangerously takes a controversial figure of race relations and distorts him. Only by presenting true accounts can historical novelists hope to honor and understand the complexity of the past and present this importance to their readers.
jarreloliveira's review against another edition
5.0
Nat Turner – The Would Be Hero
“Washington, who with our fathers purchased our freedom by blood and violence, are lauded as patterns of patriotism and Christianity. Nat Turner, and his associates, who endeavored to work out their own salvation from an oppression incomparably more grievous and unjust than our fathers endured, were treated as rebels, and murderous assassins, and were ruthlessly hung, or shot like wolves, and their memory is corrupt.” (February 13, 1836) William Lloyd Garrison
Styron received plenty of heat for his novel on the cryptic phantom of the black Spartacus, Nat Turner.
I advise the reader to pick up the 25th Anniversary Edition where Styron expresses his sentiments on the backlash the book received from disenfranchised black groups who had made a god of Turner whereas Styron had made him a man, who as expected, struggled with rage, lust, and the other mundane things a man of that era might have struggled with. Styron adds almost fifty pages on his understanding of the critique, the analytical part yes, but admits a resolute head-scratching at the mindless distaste for his work from people who never read it.
I had not known that Styron had hosted James Baldwin at his home and even received advice and blessings from Baldwin to venture into this first-person narrative of Nat Turner’s life.
Styron admits the liberty he took in recreating the antebellum world so we could understand the multifaceted grievances Turner might have had against the slave trade.
In reality, we don’t need many reasons to understand why. Nat Turner and a group of seventeen slaves set off to kill fifty-five white people in the antebellum south. Their position in life was the only precursor necessary for their vengeance upon their slave masters.
It is, however, impossible to develop a most accurate understanding of Nat Turner’s life when his confession was undersigned by a white lawyer who had been appointed to him by a court that saw him as nothing more than ‘property gone rogue’ and property worthy of hanging, quartering, and burning.
Either way, it an expressive work of art and demonstrably true of the horrors of American history, which, retrospectively, was all deserving of Nat Turner’s insurrection.
Sadly, his bid for freedom is seen and described as an insurrection instead of a revolution. Why? You ask. It’s because Nat Turner failed. Unlike his predecessor George Washington, who fought with the same fervency and won, Nat has been relocated to the forgotten and dismissed recesses of American history where he remains a negro terrorist instead of the black Moses he was for his time.
One cannot help but wonder… what if Nat Turner had succeeded?
"The bodies of those executed, with one exception, were buried in a decent and becoming manner. That of Nat Turner was delivered to the doctors, who skinned it and made grease of the flesh. Mr. R.S. Barham’s father owned a money purse made of his hide. His skeleton was for many years in the possession of Dr. Massenberg, but has since been misplaced." - Drewry, The Southampton Insurrection
“Washington, who with our fathers purchased our freedom by blood and violence, are lauded as patterns of patriotism and Christianity. Nat Turner, and his associates, who endeavored to work out their own salvation from an oppression incomparably more grievous and unjust than our fathers endured, were treated as rebels, and murderous assassins, and were ruthlessly hung, or shot like wolves, and their memory is corrupt.” (February 13, 1836) William Lloyd Garrison
Styron received plenty of heat for his novel on the cryptic phantom of the black Spartacus, Nat Turner.
I advise the reader to pick up the 25th Anniversary Edition where Styron expresses his sentiments on the backlash the book received from disenfranchised black groups who had made a god of Turner whereas Styron had made him a man, who as expected, struggled with rage, lust, and the other mundane things a man of that era might have struggled with. Styron adds almost fifty pages on his understanding of the critique, the analytical part yes, but admits a resolute head-scratching at the mindless distaste for his work from people who never read it.
I had not known that Styron had hosted James Baldwin at his home and even received advice and blessings from Baldwin to venture into this first-person narrative of Nat Turner’s life.
Styron admits the liberty he took in recreating the antebellum world so we could understand the multifaceted grievances Turner might have had against the slave trade.
In reality, we don’t need many reasons to understand why. Nat Turner and a group of seventeen slaves set off to kill fifty-five white people in the antebellum south. Their position in life was the only precursor necessary for their vengeance upon their slave masters.
It is, however, impossible to develop a most accurate understanding of Nat Turner’s life when his confession was undersigned by a white lawyer who had been appointed to him by a court that saw him as nothing more than ‘property gone rogue’ and property worthy of hanging, quartering, and burning.
Either way, it an expressive work of art and demonstrably true of the horrors of American history, which, retrospectively, was all deserving of Nat Turner’s insurrection.
Sadly, his bid for freedom is seen and described as an insurrection instead of a revolution. Why? You ask. It’s because Nat Turner failed. Unlike his predecessor George Washington, who fought with the same fervency and won, Nat has been relocated to the forgotten and dismissed recesses of American history where he remains a negro terrorist instead of the black Moses he was for his time.
One cannot help but wonder… what if Nat Turner had succeeded?
"The bodies of those executed, with one exception, were buried in a decent and becoming manner. That of Nat Turner was delivered to the doctors, who skinned it and made grease of the flesh. Mr. R.S. Barham’s father owned a money purse made of his hide. His skeleton was for many years in the possession of Dr. Massenberg, but has since been misplaced." - Drewry, The Southampton Insurrection
kerrykerryboberry's review against another edition
challenging
dark
sad
tense
slow-paced
eliser217's review against another edition
4.0
This book is just absolutely jaw-dropping. It is all at the same time beautiful, harsh, and poignant. I know it has faced some criticism and accusations of racism, which I can't really deny, but it's an overall unflinching look at slavery and the mind of a zealot. Styron really gets into Nat's head and into the inner workings of such a fiercely passionate leader. Nat's transformation from lay-preacher to damn-near cult leader is slow and reasoned, so that you never feel like there's a huge jump from one to the next.
grace_theliteraryfiend's review
challenging
dark
emotional
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.75
pepper1133's review against another edition
3.0
Before reading the book: I have mixed feelings about tackling this book. I love Styron's writing, but at the same time I have read the critiques of the book, and from both that and my experiences in graduate school and as a critical scholar, I understand the complexities that come with the fact of a white man in the 20th century writing about the experiences of a black man in the 19th century. I'm pretty uncomfortable about this, but I still want to read the book.
After reading the book: I still have mixed feelings about this book! Not with the writing style, of course, as Styron really is a master with all the technical aspects of writing, but rather with the way the story is developed and told. I honestly could not stop thinking about the fact that it was a white man in 1967 writing about a black man in 1831. I read some background material, including Stryon's own thoughts on this issue, but it still just doesn't hang right for me. On the one hand, (and believe me, as the most leftest person you are likely to meet), it felt like Stryon was justifying the killings, up until the point that Nat starts to realize, oh, perhaps God doesn't want me to kill people. Likewise, there is an undercurrent sexuality throughout that suggest that perhaps if Nat was just getting laid on a regular basis, everything would have been fine. (I did enjoy his one realization that after his insurrection was over, he should probably get a wife.) It seemed that Stryon was suggesting a psychosexual motivation for what happened, and I'm not sure it can be boiled down that easily. I know I will be thinking about this book for a long time to come, as I can't get over the racial conceit. Still, one could also make the same argument for Stryon's "Sophie's Choice," saying that in telling the story of a woman who survived the concentration camps he is also speaking for someone who perhaps does not need him to speak for her? And therein, my friends, is the problem of dealing with the issue of who gets to speak for whom.
After reading the book: I still have mixed feelings about this book! Not with the writing style, of course, as Styron really is a master with all the technical aspects of writing, but rather with the way the story is developed and told. I honestly could not stop thinking about the fact that it was a white man in 1967 writing about a black man in 1831. I read some background material, including Stryon's own thoughts on this issue, but it still just doesn't hang right for me. On the one hand, (and believe me, as the most leftest person you are likely to meet), it felt like Stryon was justifying the killings, up until the point that Nat starts to realize, oh, perhaps God doesn't want me to kill people. Likewise, there is an undercurrent sexuality throughout that suggest that perhaps if Nat was just getting laid on a regular basis, everything would have been fine. (I did enjoy his one realization that after his insurrection was over, he should probably get a wife.) It seemed that Stryon was suggesting a psychosexual motivation for what happened, and I'm not sure it can be boiled down that easily. I know I will be thinking about this book for a long time to come, as I can't get over the racial conceit. Still, one could also make the same argument for Stryon's "Sophie's Choice," saying that in telling the story of a woman who survived the concentration camps he is also speaking for someone who perhaps does not need him to speak for her? And therein, my friends, is the problem of dealing with the issue of who gets to speak for whom.
cmarie1665's review against another edition
4.0
I can't believe we didn't study this in school. I grew up 70 miles away from Jerusalem and I don't remember any teacher ever once mentioning the name Nat Turner, despite countless field trips to colonial Williamsburg and Monticello. I felt conflicted about how William Styron unapologetically appropriates the story of a black slave, when he is a white male, but then feel that perspective taking is what fiction is all about. If we didn't give authors license to write from points of views that aren't their own, every book would be thinly veiled memoir.
leighnonymous's review against another edition
4.0
This was both more entertaining and more graphic than I was expecting it to be. I expected some kind of dry, fact-by-fact account of an event in the history of the U.S. Instead, this book brought Nat Turner to life for me. The author states in the foreword that he had very little to draw from when creating the novel; therefore, he took liberties.
I have no idea why this novel (fiction, mind you) is labeled "racist" by so many. I found myself caring for Nat and although not condoning his actions at the end of his journey, most certainly understanding them. I thought Styron dealt fairly with both, complex sides of Nat: a caring, religious-minded, genuinely good person and the man who had simply had enough of the blatant unfairness of his own life and the lives of fellow blacks. (I don't say slaves because there are examples of injustices to freed slaves appearing throughout the book). I almost screamed with rage at one point in the book because of the injustice Nat had to endure at the greedy hands of a so-called man of God.
Injustice and unfairness happen to everyone, some of us more harshly than others and on a larger scale. I think this is what makes this novel so appealing; every human being can relate to that. I think Styron's ultimate message to humanity was excellent, too, and a lesson for us all: don't condemn all of one race because of a few individuals.
I have no idea why this novel (fiction, mind you) is labeled "racist" by so many. I found myself caring for Nat and although not condoning his actions at the end of his journey, most certainly understanding them. I thought Styron dealt fairly with both, complex sides of Nat: a caring, religious-minded, genuinely good person and the man who had simply had enough of the blatant unfairness of his own life and the lives of fellow blacks. (I don't say slaves because there are examples of injustices to freed slaves appearing throughout the book). I almost screamed with rage at one point in the book because of the injustice Nat had to endure at the greedy hands of a so-called man of God.
Injustice and unfairness happen to everyone, some of us more harshly than others and on a larger scale. I think this is what makes this novel so appealing; every human being can relate to that. I think Styron's ultimate message to humanity was excellent, too, and a lesson for us all: don't condemn all of one race because of a few individuals.