Comparing The Narrative Of The Life Of Frederick Douglass
Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, the testimony of Sarah Fitzpatrick, and the film 12 Years a Slave all deal with the same central subject: Slavery. The differences between these sources is that Frederick Douglass wrote his narrative himself after escaping slavery, Sarah Fitzpatrick interviewed for her testimony, and the film is based off of Solomon Northup’s autobiography. Each source has their strengths and weaknesses, but the severity of them is what determines its value, and the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass possesses the strongest understanding of slavery.
The film 12 Years a Slave brought the unique strength of imagery that the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass and Sarah Fitzpatrick’s testimony lacked.
12 Years a Slave forced vivid pictures into the audiences mind, leaving no room for discrepancies. The movie helped show the emotions and physical pain of the slaves, while also giving a deep look at the cruelness of slave-owners. While the narrative and testimony also showed some aspect of a slave-owner, the film focused more on the relationship between slave and slave-owner. One weakness that 12 Years a Slave possessed was that it was not as raw as the testimony and narrative. The film was aware that it would be shown in a mostly white-centered society and thus so, I believe, censored the horrors of slavery. Yes, the film was gory and could make even the strongest stomachs fill with vile from the torture, especially the scene where Solomon is forced to whip Patsy, but it was still not portrayed as accurately or openly as it could have been. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass was aware of what he was writing, and the consequences, but Douglass still gave authentication to the torture of slaves. For example, Douglass holds nothing back when he describes the whipping of Aunt Hester, for it is detailed for a full page. In contrast, 12 Years a Slave did in fact show whippings, but only when it was a repercussion of something a slave did, which is contradicted by Douglass talking about one of his masters; “He would at times seem to take great pleasure in whipping a slave…He would whip her to make her scream, and whip her to make her hush…” (Douglass, 5). Douglass’s narrative and 12 Years a Slave vary in representation of humanity amongst the slave-owner, and in this case the movie is most likely distorting this aspect in favor of not making people too uncomfortable.
Sarah Fitzpatrick’s testimony and the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass both have the authenticity 12 Years a Slave did not because they both came directly from the mind of the authors. The film was an adaption of Solomon Northrup’s autobiography, therefore it was sifted through, open for additions or redirections. However, both Frederick Douglas and Sarah Fitzpatrick had their experiences written down after the fact. Douglass, writing his narrative years after running away, opening his memory to distortions and forgetfulness, and Fitzpatrick being ninety years old when interviewed, also allowing her memory to be played with by time. Nonetheless, both accounts are verbatim and not open to Hollywood changing details.
While all the sources have their own distinctive strengths and weaknesses, when it comes to teaching audiences about slavery I find it most important to be as truthful as possible, regardless of how uncomfortable it may make someone. Therefore, while Sarah Fitzpatrick’s testimony was insightful, it lacked the harshness that is needed on this subject. 12 Years a Slave provided visuals that the other two sources lacked, however it lacked the severity in truth. Despite the fact that the Narrative of the life of Frederick Douglas is vulnerable to memory error, its strengths greatly outweigh its weaknesses, making it the strongest source in understanding slavery.
The film 12 Years a Slave brought the unique strength of imagery that the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass and Sarah Fitzpatrick’s testimony lacked.
12 Years a Slave forced vivid pictures into the audiences mind, leaving no room for discrepancies. The movie helped show the emotions and physical pain of the slaves, while also giving a deep look at the cruelness of slave-owners. While the narrative and testimony also showed some aspect of a slave-owner, the film focused more on the relationship between slave and slave-owner. One weakness that 12 Years a Slave possessed was that it was not as raw as the testimony and narrative. The film was aware that it would be shown in a mostly white-centered society and thus so, I believe, censored the horrors of slavery. Yes, the film was gory and could make even the strongest stomachs fill with vile from the torture, especially the scene where Solomon is forced to whip Patsy, but it was still not portrayed as accurately or openly as it could have been. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass was aware of what he was writing, and the consequences, but Douglass still gave authentication to the torture of slaves. For example, Douglass holds nothing back when he describes the whipping of Aunt Hester, for it is detailed for a full page. In contrast, 12 Years a Slave did in fact show whippings, but only when it was a repercussion of something a slave did, which is contradicted by Douglass talking about one of his masters; “He would at times seem to take great pleasure in whipping a slave…He would whip her to make her scream, and whip her to make her hush…” (Douglass, 5). Douglass’s narrative and 12 Years a Slave vary in representation of humanity amongst the slave-owner, and in this case the movie is most likely distorting this aspect in favor of not making people too uncomfortable.
Sarah Fitzpatrick’s testimony and the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass both have the authenticity 12 Years a Slave did not because they both came directly from the mind of the authors. The film was an adaption of Solomon Northrup’s autobiography, therefore it was sifted through, open for additions or redirections. However, both Frederick Douglas and Sarah Fitzpatrick had their experiences written down after the fact. Douglass, writing his narrative years after running away, opening his memory to distortions and forgetfulness, and Fitzpatrick being ninety years old when interviewed, also allowing her memory to be played with by time. Nonetheless, both accounts are verbatim and not open to Hollywood changing details.
While all the sources have their own distinctive strengths and weaknesses, when it comes to teaching audiences about slavery I find it most important to be as truthful as possible, regardless of how uncomfortable it may make someone. Therefore, while Sarah Fitzpatrick’s testimony was insightful, it lacked the harshness that is needed on this subject. 12 Years a Slave provided visuals that the other two sources lacked, however it lacked the severity in truth. Despite the fact that the Narrative of the life of Frederick Douglas is vulnerable to memory error, its strengths greatly outweigh its weaknesses, making it the strongest source in understanding slavery.