Domo Arigato, Mr. Oroonoko

Reading Oroonoko, I was interested in the fact that all the action of the story seemed to happen in a blur, within the last few pages of the book. The rebellion Oroonoko tried to start was quickly inspired and quickly quelled, with Oroonoko going from hate to desperation even more quickly.

For all the description and attention to detail the Behn gives in the first half of the story, I was surprised at how vague she was in describing the end of it. Was this some writing method...since she was writing this as if she learned the whole story first hand, Oroonoko was able to tell her his story firsthand, until the point of the rebellion/murder of Imoinda, where she needed to remain vague if she wanted to keep with the idea of Oroonoko being real? For, if she did know all the details of these aspects of the story, it would have been clear that she was making the story up?

Or maybe Behn just wanted the story to be focused on the bravery and noble nature of Oroonoko, and therefore played up the more brave and noble aspects of his life. This read more like a drama/tragedy than a slave narrative to me. Maybe Behn thought too much focus on Oroonoko's fight for freedom would turn her tale into too much of a abolitionist piece?

I don't know if I'm being particularly articulate in saying what I'm thinking (what else is new?). But I also think that there is a reason for why Behn rushed through so much of the action towards the end of the story, and filled the book instead with details and romanticized drama.