Robinson Crusoe Analysis

« ROBINSON CRUSOE » Daniel Defoe

Cours du 1er décembre 2010
P.14: This book is perceived very differently across cultures and also across the different periods of time!
Not the same in the 18th century than in the 21st.
EPITOME/ARCH representative picture of western man. * Blueprint for colonization

Women absent from the picture: it is quite possible in literature to find journeys of exploration that actually involve community, women!
Here: male at the center of the story.

Next week: Defoe can write in a female point of view BUT here, MALE PROJECT.

Despite the first catastrophe, Crusoe sit again in a journey -> disaster: taking captive as a slave by Muslims (non-Christian country).
Freedom >< slavery: essential.

Motivation to leave: slave trade in Africa.
Someone who has been in slavery himself doesn’t come to the conclusion that there’s a problem with this condition (slavery).
Relationship with another slave, a Muslim won’t be enough to set him off to not going off to slave trade. * Foreshadowing of relationship with Friday.

Issue of imprisoning: obsession with enclosures other to protect oneself from savages.

P.18: Change of circumstances from merchant to a miserable slave: trader -> traded!
Merchant = freedom (novel idea) through money and property.
Totally obsessed with his wish to escape (foreshadows his wish to escape from the island). He finds a way out by taking advantage of a mini excursion where he’s accompanied by his master.

P.19-23: To what extent is the non-Western character stereotyped or not?
Contradictions: there are stereotypes.
Clearly we have a novel where some parts are fully detailed but that episode is not one of those. Despite the stereotype, we can’t say that it’s a Manichean episode. Bond Crusoe – Xury (other slave).
He passes very quickly to the Muslim captivity episode but he also does the same to what it’s like to be on n English boat at that time -> it was AWFUL!!!! Devastated by scurvy (vitamin deficiency).
His idealization of naval life is in contradiction of the truth: his father had all the reasons to be worried.

No details about the habits of the Muslims but no demonization either: problematic but not “black & white” .
The story doesn’t hide the fact that slavery wasn’t only an European phenomenon!!!

ANECDOTE: One of the nicknames of the Englishmen is “ LIMEY “ -> lime : after a certain number of years and centuries, the English discovered that you could use lemon juice to cure scurvy.

First approach of the African Coast: p.22 -> quite a bit of stereotypes. You have all the fears in the European imaginary: savages in humane form but also savages in animal form. Wilderness of the human/animal world.
Question: how realistic is this? Projection and an interesting irony of what we should be aware of …
Lions -> first gesture = shoot the lion => establish his power ! Same thing in the history of slavery: gun power >< the autochthones. MASTER POWER.
There was no reason to kill the lion: non-human other represented by nature -> conquest over nature (in order to survive).
The conquest of nature is at the center of the colonial project/ideas.
Foreshadowing the need to tame the non-human other + all the problems linked to that taming.

P.24: Another leitmotiv: surveying of the land by the human gaze (will be an obsession).
Second one: manufacturing of tools – conquest of territories through the use of tools (gun too). * Obsession of technology at the time!
Not a coincidence: Newton experimented with optics at the time so this aspect is indirectly present in the story: the human gaze is used to conquer territories. * Development of the art of LANDSCAPING!

P.27: Nakedness = outside civilization and wilderness.
He himself is now condemned to a state of wilderness, he becomes a white savage.

P.30: Crusoe knows he has a debt. He uses his friend as money: “turn Christian or I’ll let the captain have you !”
-> Not fair for the person who has helped you acquire your freedom !
He exchanges him for his own freedom but then regrets it, not for human compassion but pragmatism!
Irony: he’s gone through that trauma to do exactly what he could’ve done at home.
P.36: Very typical of the style of the book -> diary quality of the novel, journal like style.
Catalogues, lists, itemizations.
Details increases the credibility of the story but sometimes, it’s not necessary, we still understand the story, we still perceive the exotic of the landscape. * The catalogue style reflects the obsession of the mathematics, numbers, the exact precision of the scientist.

P.39: The big storm -> shipwreck!
Biblical echoes: Jonah & the whale. Nature takes control again: man mastered by the man!
Irony: by not accepting to give up control, he ends up alone and his fellows are killed by the sea.
Fury of the elements – Divine fury.
Nature taking power: verbs in a passive voice -> human independent agency at the center of the story.

P.42: Pulls off his clothes = return to wilderness!
P.44: Changing tone from sadness to action.
The language of reason, of Western rationality.

P.46: Obsession with the one thing that correspond to the superiority of the Western civilization = the gun.
Barren = sterile BUT the island is anything but that! Eurocentric perception of a landscape that symbolizes otherness.
Inhabited land except by wild beasts.

P.50: Absence of money -> he’s a merchant and money means EVERYTHING to him!
Method: pragmatic!

P.51: Geometrical details: eye the mathematician, of the 18th century scientist.

P.54: Very ambiguous relationship to nature.
Echoes of Noah’s Ark: classifying animals + Adam in the Garden of Eden.
First exploration of the land: kills a goat, a mother goat that could have provided him milk etc.
Confrontation with the non-human other: need to kill (only approach he knows).

Homo economicus 18th century >< Homo religiosus 17th century.

P.55: The man of reason battling the man of religion.
The battle between the two is the closest Crusoe will come to blasphemy.
The scientific: ordering is own life = method of survival!

P.57: Even the religious dilemmas are formulated in a rational/scientific form.
Hyper rational western turn of mind (p.59): 18th century Enlightment formulation -> crucial.

P.60: Obsession with order.
His only strategy of survival is to put mathematical order upon the wilderness.

What about learning from the land? (20th Century kind of question)

We have a very interesting literary style: he clearly announces that he is going to give us a journal -> “mise en abyme “: journal into a journal.
Occasion to question ourselves on the status of fiction, on the value of literature.
Enframing journal -> impression of credibility.

A moment bordering to metafiction, metaliterature (fiction reflecting upon itself).
2 types of journal narration in contact.
Cours du 8 décembre 2010

We explore the narrative possibilities of the novel.

P.63: Echo of the religious narrative. The religious theme amplified and developed further in the story.
Debate on what religious authorities should be.

P.67: We have a sort of divine and providential harvest -> echoes of the Garden of Eden. Defoe is astonished because he has God’s grace upon him but he doesn’t deserve it.

P.68: Defoe’s impression that a miracle has occurred doesn’t last very long -> he discovers that there are reason for what he thought was a miracle: empirical man. Two opposite pages: believer >< rationalist.
Nature’s anger: divine anger? Illness = punishment?
“EARTHQUAKE”

P.76: Defoe says that without religion, without the civilizing force of God, he’s actually a brute, a savage!
CIVILIZATION >< SAVAGE: According to Defoe, only God can civilize us.
This is a genuine confessional text from Defoe.
Religion is linked to the debate “What is a savage? “: cultivating a God is a proof of civilization, a will to go upper than the human condition.

P.79: Typical religious interrogation.
The content is very much the thought of a believer.
The form: question after question, logical argumentation.
The tension between the believer and the rational man is really expressed!

P.80: Bibles and tobacco together (also with rum). Personal medicine in order to get better. He has some sort of revelation. The book scriptures become to make sense for him.
Ambiguous passage: before the revelation comes -> mixture of alcohol and tobacco.
Is this revelation a rational event or a divine one?
Interesting passage: the tension’s still expressed.
Rational explanation vs. divine explanation.
Island: sign of God’s generosity – place of salvation and abundance.
If he keeps on glorifying God, he will be saved!

P.85: Nature does provide through providential intervention. Man put at the center of creation.
Castle: used over and over again.
The wilderness of the nature is presented as a lush Garden of Eden -> Crusoe is the Lord and the Master of the island!
One piece missing: STEWARDSHIP.
Crusoe = blueprint of a certain western man.
Dominion control of the nature = at the heart of the book.
From beginning to end, God’s providence is there.
When Friday “gets civilized”, Crusoe gets back to the scriptures. * Book truly humane: Crusoe is asking himself questions that any human being at some times asks himself!
It is part of our humanity to ask ourselves questions about spirituality in general.

P.182: Gaze (I opened his eyes)
Once more it shows that the religious discourse in the book is quite a complex one.
Crusoe/Defoe: trying to deal with both his belief and rational side.
Reconcile individual freedom and religion.
People made a secret of the divine in order to acquire a certain power: shows the protestant aspect of Defoe.
The kind of approach that Defoe has towards religion is aware of

The savage asks very rational questions to Crusoe: he’s arguing here in the best 18th century rational style.
Even in the passages when Crusoe’s mastery is affirmed, religion is present: Friday is the mouthpiece for Crusoe doubts.
Colonization through religion = self-instruction.
The accessibility of the book is highlighted despite its religious aspect. * Tension between faith and rational analysis.

Some aspects of Defoe’s Protestantism are really revolutionary at that time.

Double-edged sword -> instrument of personal judgment.

Language is extremely important! * Evangelization of Friday: at the beginning, Friday speaks bad English but it improves through the story.
Language is linked to the Word of God but also a tool of control and self-control: crucial to your identity!
Learning a language is subjecting yourself to the local people way of thought.
Affirming yourself through language is preventing you from the state of wilderness.
No language = no civilization and no existence.

* Man of experiment

P.90: How to have a regular agricultural circle.
Impression that he’s in a laboratory like a scientist!
He book is a series of experiments: he starts from scratch, it fails but he observes why -> learns from experiment!
The more experiments he does, the more he learns -> becomes a master!

P.159: These passages – repeated – the moment he begins to long for company of others. This book repeats the same things over and over and over again!
Influence of John Locke: 18th century rationalist who’s trying to understand the mechanism of human mind.
Island = Laboratory, 18th century psychologist, summary of the evolution of man: gets on the island, learns to harm, and learns agriculture …
Positive thing! Being sedentary in a part of the island is a progression in his lot.
Is this the only scenario?
Nomadic survival >< downfall * Hunter/gatherer society (episode) * Sedentary society + agricultural ideal and hoarding and accumulative. (line of progress (18th century))

Justification of mercantile society.

* Visionary on the kind of history of men that is later developed in the 19th century. * Enlightenment vision of progress/western perception of progress

P.130: First half of the book deals with Crusoe’s self-civilization.
Second half: man as a social animal (turning point).
How to preserve his island?
Fear of his individuality being swallowed up by the savages -> preoccupation of the second part.
Cannibalism was an obsession and a threat at that time LOL! * FEAR /!\ so he captures a savage and tames him. * Footprint is an accident but Friday is not: Crusoe is an agent!

Cours du 15 décembre 2010

Confession of religious faith and religious dilemma.
Psychological theories of the time.
The act of getting Friday was a fully conscious act! Not something that happened by extent.

P.168: We a premonitory dream which very much foreshadows what is going to happen -> it is a plan! This dream will also play a considerable part in holding the story together.
Looking out for a boat becomes one of the important images that helps the story to hold together -> coherence.
The dream becomes true even if Robinson has to wait a little bit.
Moral scruples about having to kill the savages already appearing before in the text: Crusoe is disgusted by the bones of the cannibals (p. 145).
He doesn’t want to kill the savages because he realizes that it wouldn’t make him better!

P.145: Clearly not everybody at this time described the Conquistadores and the other colons in these terms! It is negative -> due to the political context: England >< Spain!
Behind all this, there is maybe a genuine moral dilemma.

P.146: Pragmatic aspect -> self-interest BUT there also is another aspect, a more moral aspect: destroying them in mass when there is no necessity of survival = bad thing, immoral thing!
Question about justice: a just government balances between punishment and generosity (John Locke’s ideas).

Warning to the reader: don’t read the story in a “black and white” way.
There is a problematic -> relationship between Friday and Robinson (paternalistic).
Friday -> treated like a child who needs protection: naïve over confidence/trusting.
Lots of rewritings in the 18th century -> robinsonade (new genre) cf. Johann Gottfried Schnabel: not just an adaptation but a genuine writing back/subversion (postcolonial).
Other examples: William Golding, The Lord of The Flies, 1954 (English author) - Michel Tournier, Vendredi ou les limbes du Pacifique (French author) – Coetzee, Foe (South African author) : introduction of a female character – Derek Walcott.
Two opposed opinions: 18th century people >< postcolonial authors.
Defoe: tension with Friday -> nuance the picture!

P.172: Highly problematic sentence -> act generally linked to submission but it doesn’t mean that you have to act upon it.
The savage rescues Crusoe: description -> it can reinforce the image of the savage for a 18th century reader.
If we decide to save room for the text, we actually agree with the fact that swords are made with a certain knowledge in technology.

P.173: Catalogue of racial stereotypes -> beauty tends to the European racial stereotypes. The precision of the way in which Friday is described is a merchant way: slave auction, slave buyer.
Not an innocent description! If he wanted to stereotype Friday in a much more unforgivable manner, he would have had the possibility to do so.

P.185: Defoe could have associated his narrative with the narrative of the people who didn’t consider Indians as human beings.
He has another way to see things: he considers Friday as a human being with a soul! Typical picture of the good savage, the noble savage but also the childish savage.
Friday is genuine is his behaviour: no scheming.
Paternalistic vision but no dehumanization of Friday.
Complicated relationship Robinson – Friday.

End: Genuine possibility to escape the island once and for all. A tale of adventures. The father of Friday is brought to the island as well.
The 50 last pages are highly important.
Robinson and Friday free the slaves… I don’t get it…
At the end: ACTION-finally… -> not innocent.

Defoe: changing role of the writer -> different classes of writers: professional writers. He wrote sequels to the tale (possibility to selling more). The novel does actually remain serious till the end.
We have blurred boundaries even at the end and wilderness remains even in a more familiar landscape.
When Crusoe returns to Europe, he is in a savage position: he doesn’t know anybody and he does not understand this civilization.
He doesn’t go back to the island: he has changed religiously and he doesn’t want to compromise his faith.
He resumes his life as a merchant: that is the one thing that genuinely stands between him and the possession of wealth…
Affirmation of himself as a protestant: professes his minority…

Book = blueprint for UK: parliamentary monarchy with a minimum of religious tolerance.
Crusoe is the governor: he is not seen -> mystic power of the monarchy.
He governs with justice and tolerance and so on. Maintains law and order
-> Not anarchy is his island.
He sends a message to England society.

A crucial book: it does actually develop a number of ideas that are typical to a certain period of the time. It created a fashion but it also met enemies. Defoe is an optimist: he affirms his beliefs and thinks that you can save your soul.

Answer back to Defoe: Jonathan Swift, Gulliver’s travels -> four islands, breaking up of the plot, stereotypes. No psychology and no verisimilitude.
Swift takes the condition of the sea travel narrative but there are elements showing that it is a fiction: Lilliputians, giants and so on.

Cours du 22 décembre 2010

Gulliver’s travels: refutation of Defoe * 2nd phase of the novel: feud/enmity, innovation (Defoe)/tradition (Swift).
He refutes him on a very comical manner: SATIRE.
Irony -> many statements which are made in an apparent serious manner are not to be taken at face value!
The readers of the time directly understand who’s being attacked in the caricature. Criticisms are directly made -> the imaginary worlds protect him: doesn’t apply to the real world.

Swift did not believe in the novel as a product of innovation -> Swift = Augustans (intellectual circle: Pope, Dryden, Johnson) : as renaissance men, they believed very much in the newly rediscovered heritage of classical literature. For him novelists lack classical education.

Instead of having one plot, he divides his story in four parts, no verisimilitude: surreal world, improbable world. No problem to show that his work is total invention: art doesn’t have to be as real as life.
Artificial episodes -> artificial characters.

Bitter laughter in Swift’s book: he was a pastor but not a Puritan. This mockery is used in order to refute Defoe’s seriousness.
Double attack: the genre and the tone and style chosen.
Defoe: great belief in the perfectibility of man -> Man taken away from his society is good!
Swift: Populated islands but Gulliver doesn’t end up being a better man. All this societies that seem to be on the surface more advanced than England show him that it is not true: the more he stays, the more quickly he understands that they’re also cruel. Social organization: Lilliput/Giants/Scientists of Lagado Academy -> tyrannical monarchies that are incapable to govern with justice + superstition and religion. War Lilliputians – Blefuscu (satire on the wars of religions). The possibility of just government fails, wherever you are!
Three successive laboratories of ideas (where hypotheses are tested): unsuccessful >< Defoe.
Part Four: rational government BUT it’s not an island made for humanity! Human being too elementary not evolved. Gulliver = Friday (savage). The horses abandon the idea to civilize Gulliver.
Regression occurs because of the misuse of science -> better at controlling people (surveillance -> no privacy). Swift anticipates it!
No linear progress: regression >< Defoe: progress.
Both authors are visionaries but they have different beliefs and different opinions. Swift is less naïve than Defoe. He anticipates science as a means for military purpose.
Legacy of Cyrano de Bergerac: travel to the moon.
Flying island: weapon to submit people! Kind of a bomber actually.
A lot of experiments are futile, ludicrous because they’re not really meant to make people’s life better.
Colonization: he describes globalization in a very mocking tone. Difference between him and Defoe. He came from Irish descent -> island. The Glorious Revolution was seen as a rehearsal for colonization in islands.
P.167: This is extreme, repellant.
P.172: Problems on how to simplify language. Locke and company in his language.
P.170: Machine that creates words and sometimes they make a sentence with sense. Complicated machinery supposed to simplify language and writing. He describes a sort of little ancestor of the computer. Visionary side of the mockery of Swift.

DEFOE: he went quite far in developing this verisimilitude that hides his own constructedness/invented nature. Other books: Moll Flanders, The Journal of The Plague Year, Roxanna. Two female heroines who try to rise in society, better their lot. They were prostitutes improving themselves and trying to affirm their rights. Moll and the plague : city novels -> new reality at the time especially because he writes about the city of the poor and of the misery. He is London novelist.
Journals were common cf. Samuel Pepys -> authentic diaries. So Defoe used it to write his stories to create the illusion of reality.
The Plague: he wasn’t even born at that time but his talent of verisimilitude. Chronicles of London at that time. Impression of truth created because he uses statistics and so on = docu-fiction.
All his books are connected by this Puritan belief of his. Interesting elements that announce Dickens and Oliver Twist.

Moll Flanders repents like Crusoe but it’s not Roxanna’s case.

* Female psychology * A style that comes close to docu-fiction * Puritan mentality

Defoe: progress – Swift: conservatism

2nd phase of the novel: 1740->1768 * Century of intense literary production: diversity and how far it goes

Three figures: * Samuel Richardson: pushing the psychological introspection much further than Defoe did. Exploration of the female psychology by a male author. * Pamela * Clarissa * Henry Fielding: Action, plot, not psychology! Deepen the integration of plot -> picaresque novel. He’s also the first to theorize the novel. * Joseph Andrews * Tom Jones * Laurence Sterne * Tristran Shandy: FUCK THIS BOOK ! * A sentimental journey through France and Italy