Any study of autobiographical narratives that appeared under the ostensible authorship of African American writers between 1760 and 1865 inevitably raises concerns about authenticity and interpretation. Should an autobiography whose written composition was literally out of the hands of its narrator be autobiographies that were authored independently by their subjects?
In many cases, the so-called edited narrative of an ex-slave ought to be treated as a ghostwritten account insofar as literary analysis is concerned, especially when it was composed by its editor from “a statement of facts” provided by an African American subject. Blassingame has taken pains to show that the editors all without compromising the validity of the narrative as a product of an African American consciousness.
Transcribed narratives in which an editor explicitly delimits his or her role undoubtedly may be regarded as more authentic and reflective of the narrator’s thought in action than those edited works that flesh out a statement of facts in ways unaccounted for. Still, it would be naïve to accord dictated oral narratives authored texts. Discussion of collaborative texts should take into account the conditions that governed their production.
What this question is testing
Your task
Identify why the author included the referenced detail at that point in the passage — its function, not its content.
Common trap
Answers that merely repeat or summarize the topic of the detail instead of describing the role it plays.
Winning move
Ask what job the detail does for the paragraph, then for the passage's broader point.
Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.