Editor's Choice
Provide two examples from the text where Douglass appears to exaggerate or self-glorify.
Quick answer:
Frederick Douglass's accounts in his narratives are hard to classify as exaggerations or self-glorifications, given the historical context and his personal experiences. Some critics at the time felt he exaggerated the role of religion in justifying slavery, as seen in his criticism of religious slaveholders. Additionally, his revisions of certain events, like his encounter with Covey, might appear more dramatic in later editions. However, these do not significantly alter the substance of his experiences.
As the educator above notes, it is difficult for the modern reader to determine where Douglass might be exaggerating, as Douglass experienced the horrors of slavery in a firsthand way that is, fortunately, not available to the modern reader. His narrative is a poignant and realistic account of what it was like for him to grow up as a slave and to then escape slavery.
Readers at the time criticized Douglass for exaggerating the evils of religion, as Douglass wrote that religion in the South at the time only made slaveowners more cruel. In chapter 10, he writes, "For of all slaveholders with whom I have ever met, religious slaveholders are the worst. I have ever found them the meanest and basest, the most cruel and cowardly, of all others." Douglass described his own, personal experience, so it's near impossible to determine whether or not this was an exaggeration.
However,...
Unlock
This Answer NowStart your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.
Already a member? Log in here.
he felt pressured to add an "Appendix" to his narrative in which he explained that he was not referring to religion in a universal sense but only to the religion of slaveowners in the south. He writes in this section, "We have men-stealers for ministers, women, whippers for missionaries, and cradle-plunderers for church members." He never recanted and continued to insist that the southern Christian slaveowners were truly more cruel in their actions as a rule. Douglass felt that religion universally made slaveowners worse.
In all sincerity, I think it will be difficult to answer this question. There might be a handful of reasons why this is so. The first would be that it would historically challenging to find areas of the Narrative that have been overstated. Where would the evidence be which indicates that Douglass oversold an event or occurrence? Certainly, any evidence present would possess more than a tinge of historical bias. At the same time, there might be a larger issue present. There seems to be a danger in assigning claims of exaggeration to Douglass' narrative. The first would be that it might allow slaveowners to escape their rightful acceptance of responsibility of their role. Even if one would claim that Douglass might be exaggerating- which is something that I would not assert- does this mitigate the effectiveness of the narrative in any way? Does this suggest that slavery is not as horrific as one could imagine and then multiplied? Is there any potential argument that would suggest that slavery somehow was good, which is not fraught with bias? I think that that self- glorification part of the question is also interesting. If we take Douglass' account to be true and valid, which as already stated it will be difficult to discount, then should there not be some level of self- glorification for enduring and triumphing over such horrific conditions? The fact that Douglass was able to emerge through such conditions and become an abolitionist would merit some level of self- glorification. I am not sure that we see this in the narrative, but if it was present, I am not certain that it is that bad of a thing.
Where does Douglass exaggerate or self-glorify in his narrative?
Life’s greatest heroes are imperfect. In fiction, it’s often the flaws that humanize our heroes. In nonfiction, it’s the responsibility of the author to be reliable—to factually recount both the good and the bad. It’s difficult to write truthfully, especially in an autobiography, about mistakes one has made or personal failings of character. The author may wish to tell a story a little differently than it really happened, to self-aggrandize or edit the dialogue to appear a little sharper, kinder, or more capable. Readers expect autobiographies to describe what really happened, but most know it wouldn’t be possible to be exactly right about every detail. Most people don’t record every conversation, and the human mind is subject to misremembering an event or even developing an entirely new perspective over time.
Frederick Douglass, a heroic figure, is surely subject to the same flaws as any other man. He revised and republished his narrative multiple times, each with differences in the way some events transpire. The differences, however, are not in substance so much as in tone. For example, in chapter 10 of the first edition of his autobiography, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass (1845), he writes:
I seized Covey hard by the throat; and as I did so, I rose. He held on to me, and I to him. My resistance was so entirely unexpected that Covey seemed taken all aback. He trembled like a leaf. This gave me assurance, and I held him uneasy, causing the blood to run where I touched him with the ends of my fingers. . . . He meant to knock me down. But just as he was leaning over to get the stick, I seized him with both hands by his collar, and brought him by a sudden snatch to the ground.
The same event, recounted in chapter 17 of the 1855 version, called My Bondage and My Freedom, reads:
The fighting madness had come upon me, and I found my strong fingers firmly attached to the throat of my cowardly tormentor; as heedless of consequences, at the moment, as though we stood as equals before the law. The very color of the man was forgotten. I felt as supple as a cat, and was ready for the snakish creature at every turn. Every blow of his was parried, though I dealt no blows in turn. I was strictly on the defensive, preventing him from injuring me, rather than trying to injure him. I flung him on the ground several times . . .
This revision says the same thing, effectively, but with a more heavy-handed writing style. While it could be seen as self-aggrandizing, Douglass does not come off as more impressive in the latter version. In fact, he loses a bit of his power in the extra details.
Some people suggest that Douglass, as a man enslaved in Maryland, exaggerates the hardships of slavery. Maryland is not the Deep South, after all. Critics believe in particular that Mrs. Auld, who teaches Douglass the alphabet, is unfairly treated in his characterizations of her, as in chapter 6 of his Narrative:
Her face was made of heavenly smiles, and her voice of tranquil music.
But, alas! this kind heart had but a short time to remain such. The fatal poison of irresponsible power was already in her hands, and soon commenced its infernal work. That cheerful eye, under the influence of slavery, soon became red with rage; that voice, made all of sweet accord, changed to one of harsh and horrid discord; and that angelic face gave place to that of a demon.
That Douglass exaggerated the horrors of slavery is not an advisable argument to make. Doing so is effectively to say that Douglass should have a more charitable perspective of a terrible institution. While it is entirely appropriate to argue that Douglass's revisions add unnecessary embellishments, it’s difficult to find selections where he clearly exaggerates outright or seeks to glorify himself.
Note: See the attached link for a letter written in 1845 by one of Douglass's early critics. He defends not only the slave masters but also the institution of slavery.
References