I read a review of Cloudsplitter in the NY Times called 'Cloudsplitter': What Abolitionism Cost John Brown's Family. It essentially dismisses the novel as being of no historical value, arguing "In fact, as a history, it is a very bad book indeed: characters and incidents have been altered, rearranged and reinvented, and speculative analysis, ungrounded in the historical record, has been slathered over Brown's entire life." These comments seem overly critical to me, considering that Banks never makes any claims of historical accuracy. On the contrary, his book was marketed as a novel, and he had motivations other than accurately portraying John Brown's life. It is difficult to make a strong argument about the book, since I only read the assigned passages, but, from what I gathered, Cloudsplitter focuses more on psychological issues and the relationship between people and their environment. It is interesting that John Brown's life is largely fictionalized, while the setting, down to the farms proximity to different mountains, is quite accurate. To be fair, Kakutani, the author of the NY Times article, does not totally disagree. He writes, "But while Owen's account is long-winded and self-indulgent, it does accomplish Banks' end: it immerses us persuasively in his father's world, and it makes us understand, in a very visceral way, the familial repercussions of living with a visionary and martyr." He does not, however, mention the environment in the entire review.


http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/02/15/daily/cloudsplitter-book-review.html