A royal misunderstanding

Oroonoko or the Royal slave serves both as an early and pioneering text of the abolitionist movement and as a product of one of histories first, and most acclaimed female authors. The novel follows the titular Oroonoko both a prince and a well respected military leaders experience being sold into slavery and the many indignities visited upon his person. Oroonoko Stands as first in a long and venerated line of abolitionist works including the history of Mary prince and Quicksand. Though from different centuries, these novels share a common link, among them is the immense injustice and pain visited on the human body by the dehumanising industry of the slave trade.

The novel goes to great lengths to deify it’s protagonist, even while his struggle is all to human. Making his suffering all the more profound. Make no mistake This is a novel written in 1688 it contains many elements that could certainly be viewed as problematic from a modern lens . Most importantly, the novel purports to be a truthful recounting of real events. When in reality, it’s not. It is of course informed by real history but its principal characters are fictional. Most likely this lie was made in order to win the audiences allegiance. This decision to misrepresent truth speaks to a deeper duality The novel struggles against. The novel is plagued by a misunderstanding of a community, it purports to speak for and perhaps more forgivably as the novels name would suggest “Oroonoko” is very focused on an individualism experience of slavery in so doing obscuring, broader context of slavery.
There is of course a narrative benefits to individualising this issue granting empathy and understanding to characters. With all this being said, the novel is well over 300 years old, and historically speaking in arguably, did more harm than good. How each individual reader feels about this misrepresentation is up to just know that it is there and it’s impossible to avoid.

The novel contains characters who were meant to be noble and decent men however they participation in or profit from dehumanisation of slavery including the Oroonoko himself. Whilst it is true, that modern moral conceptions of the injustice of slavery evolved over time, the novel clearly thinks slavery is injustice. Except when our principal characters engage in it. When this happens, the novel either ignores it or uses it as a sign of his higher birth and superiority. The novel Is having its cake and eating it to with these moments.


Oroonoko sells slaves, and he’s not held responsible for it by the narrative. The reason is a flimsy as he is the protagonist and he’s a good guy. This is both inconsistent writing and detrimental to the real history as colonising powers would turn indigenous populations against one another, perpetuating, the cycle of slavery. In the parameters set up by the novel why then is it immoral for Oroonoko to be a slave ? It seems the only answer the novel can tender is because individually he is a man of high standing as royalty and great intelligence.
His blood makes slavery wrong. This hurts the message of a book and is a great example of the novels, deep empathy for one individual whilst also detracting from a great intersectional injustice. Under this flawed, logic, slavery isn’t universally wrong, but instead based on a exactingly hight merit system. The novel, presumably because of the time it was written misses, the fact that all people have a right to freedom and autonomy not just the wealthy and the noble.

Oroonoko slave trafficker aside is great traditional Hiro innately, innately good, strong, handsome, and with a fierce sense of justice. Following the style of novels from this era, his interiority and personhood is largely denied to the reader. You could argue that was not a priority of the book and the novel successful makes Oronoco a into a kind of martyr for the cause of antislavery.

Spoilers ahead!

He’s willing to die, as it fits the punishment of a human but the idea of being dehumanised and whipped like an animal is abhorrent to him. The metaphor should be clear( but isn’t for reasons discuss) We must treat people as people first, and the industry of the slave trade is injustice because it transforms the person into property. Again, the morality of this is well-intentioned but the commodification of black bodies for a white audience is uncomfortable when read from a modern perspective

The quality that distinguishes Oroonko from his fellow slaves and which the novel states lens him power and authority, is his likeness to the civilised European world. While the book is clearly antislavery, and contains a powerful message of emancipation. This criticism of European imperialism is muddied somewhat by the super imposing of English identity onto a man who is very existence service to defy that empire. Which is it? is slavery always wrong or is it only wrong when you’re a man of high moral character? This distinction is unclear it hurts the novel to a modern reader.


Ultimately, though this review is harsh on This novel it’s still stands as a powerful and moving text that contributed to an important conversation that would eventually end in the abolishment of slavery. The time in which the novel was written should be remembered
in when engaging with the attitudes the book presents. However Oroonoko very much reads as the first sentence in said conversation. Regardless of whether it’s fictional elements and writing style is to your taste the novel is very short and powerful, well worth a read for educated, readers seeking a better understanding of the historical context of slavery. But it is perhaps more enduring as a work of historical importance then as a novel.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!