Autobiography or Oral History, Does it Matter?

After reading the The Interesting Narrative, I turned to the Jennifer Howard article, Unraveling the Narrative, and immediately wondered what the big deal was all about. What difference does it make where the author was born? Why can't Vincent Carretta just accept The Interesting Narrative for what it is, the first novel written in a black voice speaking on behalf of other blacks?

In some of our other readings of this period the line is blurred between truth and fiction but most are valued for what they mean in literary terms and not as historical documents. Why is it two of the readings this week that propose to be factual accounts of the slave trade come into question? As I stated in my previous post, if these were not actual experiences of the characters in the story, I am sure other blacks had experiences similar to the ones described.

The debate over Equiano's birthplace is a heated one and I feel it will only serve as a way to lessen the importance of this document. Whether this is an autobiography or a oral history of the abuses witnessed while a slave in the West Indies, this is a significant piece of literature. The Interesting Narrative gives a voice to an often silenced minority and it should be valued for that reason alone.