How does Linda finally attain her freedom? Why does she have mixed emotions about this at the end of the book?
Her friend Mrs. Bruce buys her from her mistress' husband, then sets her free. She has mixed feelings about this because she believes that freedom is a right, not something that can be bought. She feels a little insulted that she could be bought and traded and sold like a piece of property, especially in a 'free' state like New York. It's also a little upsetting that her friend, the kind and helpful Mrs. Bruce, can just buy her as well. Not just bad people buy and trade in slaves. Mrs. Bruce also bought her without really talking to her about it first. So Linda also feels more like a piece of property without a say in her own freedom, even though Mrs. Bruce had the best of intentions and actually did free her. Despite all this, though, she still is glad to be free, and thankful to Mrs. Bruce for buying and freeing her.
Showing posts with label incidents in the life of a slave girl. Show all posts
Showing posts with label incidents in the life of a slave girl. Show all posts
Tuesday, 13 November 2007
Monday, 12 November 2007
Honesty for Credibility
Pick a passage in which Jacobs is using her own honesty to establish her credibility. Explain how and why she is doing it.
It's difficult to pick just one passage in particular, since throughout the whole book she is using her honesty to establish her credibility. She's a slave, telling a true, horrifying story. She's been there and done and seen those things, so people can believe what she's saying. One of the passages that illustrates this best is when she's describing her situation as being better than others. She's honest enough to explain that hers is a better (definitely not best) case scenario than people who have to toil in the fields. But she also is quick to explain that that's not to say that she's happy, well-treated or in any way okay. She's not being whipped to death- not physically. I can't find the exact passage- but that's basically it. The reader is drawn more to her cause because they sympathize so much with her plight- and to thin it could be worse! She's being honest, and gaining credibility as an author. And she's been there and done that. She's obviously not making this up.
It's difficult to pick just one passage in particular, since throughout the whole book she is using her honesty to establish her credibility. She's a slave, telling a true, horrifying story. She's been there and done and seen those things, so people can believe what she's saying. One of the passages that illustrates this best is when she's describing her situation as being better than others. She's honest enough to explain that hers is a better (definitely not best) case scenario than people who have to toil in the fields. But she also is quick to explain that that's not to say that she's happy, well-treated or in any way okay. She's not being whipped to death- not physically. I can't find the exact passage- but that's basically it. The reader is drawn more to her cause because they sympathize so much with her plight- and to thin it could be worse! She's being honest, and gaining credibility as an author. And she's been there and done that. She's obviously not making this up.
Monday, 5 November 2007
Truth
Why is it important that this book is truth, not fiction? Why is it important that the editor didn’t clean it up, either in terms of language or content?
This book was written to persuade people that slavery is evil and wrong. A fictional account of a slave's sufferings would be dismissed as imagination. Fiction is not fact. People could dream up numerous horrors a slave might have suffered, yet no one would believe them. The best way to reveal the truth is to tell the truth.
Again, taking the book in context of its times, it's important that the editor did not clean it up because it would become less truthful. People might suspect from the better language and grammar that it was fake, written by a better-educated person than a slave. Or they would think that all slaves had enough opportunity, somehow, to learn to write so well, and assume that slavery couldn't be all that bad. As for content- the whole purpose of the book was to show the horrors of slavery and the whole experience of slavery. To cut any of it out would be to lie by omission- to present a different, untrue version of slavery.
This book was written to persuade people that slavery is evil and wrong. A fictional account of a slave's sufferings would be dismissed as imagination. Fiction is not fact. People could dream up numerous horrors a slave might have suffered, yet no one would believe them. The best way to reveal the truth is to tell the truth.
Again, taking the book in context of its times, it's important that the editor did not clean it up because it would become less truthful. People might suspect from the better language and grammar that it was fake, written by a better-educated person than a slave. Or they would think that all slaves had enough opportunity, somehow, to learn to write so well, and assume that slavery couldn't be all that bad. As for content- the whole purpose of the book was to show the horrors of slavery and the whole experience of slavery. To cut any of it out would be to lie by omission- to present a different, untrue version of slavery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
