I found our comparisons between Oroonoko and Equaino interesting. Both stories share similar tales of slavery with extremely different outcomes. These stories demonstrate the false and true promises that may have stemmed from slavery in the release of slaves to become freed men. In Oroonoko, the false promises of his slave owners prevent them from releasing him and his love as free. They give reasons and excuses for their behavior, but never are willing to admit that they have made a promise and broken it. Equiano is able to earn money to buy his own freedom in his story, however. His owner proves worthy of his promise, almost unbelievably to the reader.
             The real interest I have in comparing these two stories is in the reliability of the authors who wrote each of these tales. While Equiano is questioned for his descriptions of Africa and the Middle Passage, Behn's reliability as an author appears unquestioned. Perhaps this stems from the fact that Behn does not claim to tell the story of her own life, but tells the story of another in an omniscient fashion. However, with recent debates on the probable birthplace of Equiano it appears that he is telling the stories of others as well through a story of his own life. "Scholars sometimes sense an undercurrent of fear that any challenge to the most eloquent portrayal of the horrific middle passage will inevitably call the authenticity of that historical event- and its horrors- into question" (Boyce). This fear directly related to concerns that his account is untruthful, but Behn's account appears unquestioned as a work of historical fiction. Is this due to her status as a white female writer or due to the Greek tragedy set up of the novel? Would a white female have greater access to the stories of the horrific middle passage and Africa than another black male slave who would be in constant conversation with others in similar situations?
             ...