NOTE: Check out these early editions of Robinson Crusoe (and books inspired by it) from the Miami University special collections website (where I got my Ph.D.): http://spec.lib.miamioh.edu/home/from-the-stacks-robinson-crusoe/
Readings in Eighteenth and
Nineteenth-Century Opinions: Rousseau, Blair, Beattie, Chalmers, Ballantyne,
Coleridge, Lamb, Wordsworth, Poe, Hazlitt, de Quincey, Borrow, Macaulay,
Dickens, Stephen (pp.262-279)
Readings in Twentieth-Century
Criticism: Woolf (283-297), Joyce (320-323)
Answer TWO of the following:
1. Why do so many of the earlier
critics insist that Robinson Crusoe is a work best suited for children,
and indeed, is “one of the best books that can be put in the hands of children”
(265)? What makes this book almost
impossible for children to read today?
What aspect of the book—or culture—have changed the most? Or do you still agree with these
writers?
2. Samuel Taylor Coleridge insisted
that Crusoe “is merely a representative of humanity in general: neither his
intellectual nor his moral qualities set him above the middle degree of
mankind” (268). Do you agree with this
statement? If so, why is it important
for Defoe to make his hero such an “average” character? If not, why might Coleridge be misreading
Defoe’s intentions?
3. De Quincey writes that Defoe’s
unique gift is to “invent, when nothing at all is gained by inventing” (272). Yet Macaulay, on the opposite page, claims
that “He had undoubtedly a knack at making fiction look like the truth. But is such a knack much to be admired?”
(273). What side of the argument do you
stand on? Do you feel such inventions
are crucial to the modern novel? Or do
they betray the hodgepodge origins of the novel which were soon refined by Jane
Austen and others?
4. How is Woolf’s essay a revision of
an earlier generation of critics who accused Defoe of having “a very powerful
but a very limited imagination” (279)?
What does she means by her statement, Defoe has throughout kept
consistently to his own sense of perspective” (285)?
1. I can see how in that day and time’s culture and society that it might be read by children. However, today children would be befuddled by the sporadic capitalization, the vocabulary, and would probably be bored to tears considering children today live in such an action-packed literary world. Children nowadays rarely read books for moral instruction, but usually for entertainment. I think that is what has changed the most. Our culture has so much more variety of genres for children, and Robinson Crusoe can hardly compete with say the Hunger Games for most kids’ attentions today. I can’t say that this is still arguably a children’s book today.
ReplyDelete4. Woolf doesn’t attack Defoe, but she is saying that we expect a certain kind of story when we pick up Robinson Crusoe and Defoe does not indulge the reader in that type romanticized story. She is expressing that Defoe has mastery over his work, but does not provide lavish niceties like picturesque sunsets. I think she is hinting that Defoe is writing Crusoe through his limited perspective and not entertaining the idea of elaborating in an imaginative way. It doesn’t affect the believably, but it is certainly different for a 21st century reader of novels to experience the somewhat dry story.
Great responses...but isn't it odd that a book that is so dry and matter-of-fact today used to read as a thrilling, personal account of adventure? What changed? Is this just a generational thing? Will the students of the 22nd century find Harry Potter the equivalent of reading an encyclopedia? Or is there some other quality that makes Crusoe not translate as well besides just the style?
DeleteAshley Bean
ReplyDelete1. The only way I can understand it being a children's book is because it was the "first" novel, and had a nice, somewhat action filled, adventure. There just weren't book for pleasure before then. (Maybe it was even used to show what a noun is since all of them are capitalized... HA). But nowadays reading for pleasure is enforced in all education, almost harder than actual textbook reading. We look on Robinson Crusoe today as a boring memoir compared to other books for a younger age group. The vocabulary is completely different than what would be used today as well. Kids today would not be able to get through it like before.
2. I agree with him. Robinson Crusoe is very much an average guy, even a lower class guy. He's just another ambitious, greedy merchant that goes on a journey that in some way everyone makes. Not everyone gets stranded on an island, but everyone has their battles and works hard to maintain their life. Defoe made Crusoe this way so everyone can relate, rather than writing about a beautiful, pampering journey about a noble at his pretty estate or whatever. There's no adventure in that to most people, the adventure is about the journey, not the destination.
Great, thoughtful responses...some of the readings in this selection suggest that the British empire expanded so quickly and completely based on generations of kids reading this book and "becoming" Crusoes. Do you think our modern value systems/beliefs make this book less interesting for us as well? Do we reject ideas that the 18th/19th century took for granted?
Delete1. I found Rousseau’s critique of the work the most interesting. He suggests that this book should be the only one in a child’s library. His philosophy is strongly anchored in nature and solidarity; therefore, this didn’t come as a surprise. He believes that it’s well suited for a child because of the lessons to be learned from the book, most specifically living alone on a remote island. There are still lessons to be taken from this work by modern 12-15 year olds; but the mode of delivery would not likely drive a teenage to boy to pull this off the shelf. The basis of the story is still enthralling for the young adult audience; however, the pace is slow compared to other works meant for teens. Defoe’s lack of picturesque sunsets might also be a factor for making this a children’s book of our time.
ReplyDelete2. This book was popular among every class, even the peasants. Defoe wouldn’t have possibly reached the multitudes with a main character that was of a higher class. He wrote in a way that every man could see himself in Crusoe’s shoes; this is what made it so popular for everyone. If it wasn’t intention that put this character below the “middle degree” than it must have been divine design, because it was genius for that time period.
Good responses...as you suggest, it's written with a minimum of poetry so that anyone (of the time, anyway) could step into it and imagine themselves as a kind of Crusoe. But as you also suggest, the pace is too slow for a modern reader, particularly a modern YA reader. It's interesting to consider that though Crusoe is short, it's slow, whereas many YA books, such as Harry Potter, are 3 times as long yet read "faster." What might this say about our current reading tastes? Have they improved, declined, or simply adapted?
DeleteKelsey Tiger
ReplyDelete1. I think in previous centuries this book was probably best suited for children as the book was written in relation to their time. It did teach how to survive with practically nothing. I think this could help children to be independent and gain survival skills. That doesn’t really relate to children today, though. With technology surrounding their lives and with more action filled books and movies, this book probably would be very hard for them to enjoy and get into. I don’t agree with these writers in our society today.
2. I agree with the statement, I think he is just an “average” guy. He struggled through life on the island, just like most people do in real life. There is always a struggle along the way. I think his moral qualities are relatable to most people too. I think by making him average, more people are able to relate to his character.
If it's true that we simply can't appreciate this book as it once was, or that it doesn't communicate with children/common people the way it did, does that suggest that it's no longer valid? That it's "dead" as a work of literature? Why should we read an old book, especially if we have to struggle so much with it? Or, does this suggest something that we've lost, rather than something the book has?
DeleteAimee Elmore
ReplyDelete1.This book isn't really a book I would give my children, but thinking about it more and the time it was written I realize something. I realized that in that time this book was just right for kids. It had adventure and pirates. They may not understand everything that goes on in the book but they understand enough to get something out of it.
2. He wrote the book in a way that everyone could read it. No matter the class. If the book was written about an upper class guy than the lower people won't want to read it.
Yes, this is Pirates of the Caribbean for its time, and not surprisingly, Defoe wrote a lot of works about pirates, which movies like that drew from. However, it's simply not a kids' book today because of the language and the style. Does this suggest that books like this outgrow their moment in time and that old literature isn't useful once it no longer communicates to the current generation? Or do we simply have to re-learn how to read older books? Is it worth it?
Delete1. I think the reason son people would believe this book is great for children is because it teaches them to work. One thing Robinson Crusoe has going for him is that every time something terrible comes up, due to his disobedience to God and his parents, he figures out a way to make it work. He is alone on an island and somehow he manages to build a “castle” and live a pretty rich lifestyle. A book like this would teach children that they can accomplish things with hard work and to never give up. Nowadays children wouldn’t read this book because it isn’t “busy” enough. Compared to other books there isn’t enough action going on so they would quickly lose interest.
ReplyDelete2. I think Defoe made Crusoe such an average and ordinary person that everyone who read it, or at least the general population, could relate to him in some way. It made it easier for everyone to read and understand because it was so simple. It was a common person’s story so it had a bigger audience than some of the other pieces being written in that time.
Great points--it is a great 'moral' text in that Crusoe refuses to despair, give up, or rest on his laurels. He always wants to learn, to create, to push the boundaries--even when he thinks God has punished him for doing so! At least one of the writers in our selection suggests that the British empire expanded so widely and so quickly based on generations of children reading Crusoe. Could this be possible, do you think?
Delete1. I believe that many say that this work is best suited for children because of the imagination of it and also the adventure of it. I really think in this day and age it would be hard for a child to find this reading interesting. It was super hard for me to find it interesting because like we discussed in class today, I am used to the more glittery text. I like all the wow factors that take place in today's texts. Children are more exposed to movies and things like that to fill their time, literature isn't the only way for them to get a form of entertainment and back then, this was a key way for children to explore an adventure that was taking place outside of their own lives.
ReplyDelete2. I think Defoe makes Crusoe such an average character because he wants to show people how you can go from so low to being such a gentleman who is completely wealthy and has more than he would ever know what to do with. I think that is one way to view all of the circumstances that Crusoe has to encounter. In my adult mind, I see Crusoe as being a bit cocky and not realizing where he came from in a lot of instances. But I would hope that the moral that is taken away here is that you can be successful no matter what you came from, there is a hope that you can be just as successful as you want to be.
Great responses...as a future teacher, do you think we have injured kids' ability to read/appreciate books by making them compete with movies and become "glittery"? Or is this a natural process that happens with each generation (or every 100 years or so)? I find it fascinating that a book that was considered "easy kitchen reading" in the 1800's is now a grueling college text that some people find excruciatingly boring. I wonder what really changed?
DeleteElyse Marquardt
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1: James Beattie thought it was ideal for children because it "breathes throughout a spirit of piety and benevolence" and teaches a good work ethic. However, I do believe that this book, in its original form, would be virtually impossible for children to read in this day and age. It has large words, abstract ideas, and so much tedious description that kids these days, who are trained to expect constant action and little thought, would be lost immediately. Perhaps a children's edition of the book would work, if it left out a great amount of detail.
Question 4: Earlier critics, such as Leslie Stephen, implied that Defoe had a very original imagination but very limited to his own fancy. In other words, he didn't have many ideas; but what ideas he did have, he expanded them with such enthusiasm that they came across as interesting and real. This is what Virginia Woolf meant when she said that "Defoe had kept consistently with his own sense of perspective." We are not allowed to come up with our own interpretation of Robinson Crusoe, but instead must accept Defoe's personal thoughts as the only possible way to look at the story.
Great responses...as you suggest, there are many versions of Crusoe which have been simplified for children, with the tedious and the questionable parts taken out. Does this make it a "better" read for them, or just "easier"? Ultimately, we have to take a work as it is, and not lop it off for easier consumption. However, it's interesting to think how many children grew up with the work as it is, and how it might have shaped them as future readers/thinkers!
DeleteShelby Pletcher
ReplyDelete1) To think of Robinson Crusoe in today's age as a children's book would be absurd. However, at the time DeFoe's novel was written, the expected bar for children to reach was much higher. As you touched on in class today, they were basically little adults. So I think the arguments made by Rousseau were somewhat accurate, however I don't think he's truly appreciating the deeper aspects of this novel. Despite that, children +could easily appreciate what they could understand and later understand that which they couldn't appreciate later on in life. Today's children, however, are a completely different story. While some of today's children's books are appreciate by people on both ends of the spectrum of age, there are some rather emotionless and dry qualities about Robinson Crusoe that I don't think would go over quite well in today's world where we expect everything to be big, glorious, and dripping with life-or-death excitement. While Crusoe certainly has some of these qualities we expect out of a novel or a film today, the audience must dig much much deeper to grasp onto it today, especially with the way in which we have under educated several generations of children.
2) Personally, I think the mere assessment that DeFoe might write about such an average character makes him a not-so-average person. I hink the average person of middle-class intelligence in this day and age and beyond, who chose to write a "great" novel, most especially the first one, would write about a "great" character. It takes so much artistic depth to be willing to write about such a character as DeFoe did in his characteristic of Crusoe. Of course, he's average. If I'm right in my beliefs that Robinson Crusoe was written to relate and convict the readers of this time, then DeFoe gave himself the daunting task of creating an average character to do just that. Crusoe was already placed in a unique situation within his solidarity on the island. How much less relatable would he be if Crusoe had chosen to create him into this intelligent, etheral, all-consuming kind of a man who beat his every whim and recognized his every flaw enough to make himself into who we all wanted to be. Crusoe is written just enough like someone you don't want to be, that you begin questioning who you would be in his situations. And I think that is exactly what DeFoe's goal was in writing this novel during this time.
Great responses...I agree that Defoe's genius was to see the "epic" possibilities in normal people, creating a new literary form that deal with common life (before that, a story needed kings, queens, fairies, etc.). He was also unique in his ability to make a protagonist who is deeply flawed, capable of great insights and stupid mistakes. In other words, he broke all the rules of art in creating something that we continue to read--and be frustrated by!
Delete1. Two hundred years ago children did not have ipads, comic books, or movies. I think in the sense that this booked was very imaginative and make believe give it a child like quality. In modern times the language would need to be updated for some children to understand it. Some of the repetitious information between his account and his journal would need to be omitted. My son who enjoyed reading Pilgrim's Progress last year when he was ten, immediately came to my mind when reading this book. I can also understand this book being paraded as a children's book because in those times literature was a high art. Meaning, books were written for the very "artsy" and intellectual people. This book was written as if any common man could write it.
ReplyDelete3. I side on the opinion of Defoe being brilliant. I really enjoyed reading this work. I almost considered it what reality TV should be! Reality TV isn’t real because we know real life is not THAT exciting. We understand that conflict doesn’t happen that often and is never that dramatic, sexy, or whatever spin they put on it. I became so absorbed into Crusoe’s life that I felt like I was really there.
I understand that maybe Defoe overdid it, but even in modern novels it often helps to create a real space, a world, in which the character can live and interact in.
Great responses...for the time, the story was immediate and almost child-like in its simplicity and directness (a lack of poetry, metaphors, allusions, etc.). We can find the same thing in Harry Potter (for example) today, which is a story which is immediate and direct, and doesn't aspire to be "literature" in the way that Tolkein does with The Lord of the Rings with its epic, timeless feel. Many people today who find that hard to read can read Potter with ease and enjoyment.
ReplyDelete