haha...it seems like a good majority of us forgot to blog because we're too busy revising...i'm guilty as well since i'm posting after the deadline.

For the sake of argument...
If Equiano is truly not born from Africa, then his whole narrative is discredited which means that there is no reason to read his book.

Equiano states that the narrative is essentially his autobiography. He claims that he experienced everything written in the book. Therefore we expect the story to be his own story. But if he was not from Africa, then he could not have possibly experienced all that he claimed since he claims to have been born in Africa. This would make him a liar.

Now if he didn't really experience all that, then what did he experience? Also, is there any validity in saying that some other African slave experienced what he described? If he does not try to preserve the integrity of his story then everything should be disregarded because how can you divide actual first hand experience from second hand or perhaps even fabricated experiences?

If he said that it was a compilation of slave stories woven together into the life a of a fictional African then great, lets keep reading. But if he claims first hand experience yet puts in other accounts then he is actively deceiving the reader and there is no point in reading it for the sake of truth and history. If we want to read it with our fiction/entertainment lenses, then go for it...you can read just about anything with that perspective.