Melissa’s review of Robinson Crusoe > Likes and Comments
753 likes · Like
I can't say I share your opinion in the matter, but that is maybe because I have read this book during the perfect age to read such books : when you are 12! Now, as much as I try to respect other's opinions , you have to forgive me but I had to add that your indignation towards the political incorrectness of Defoe is unpardonable considering that the "whitey" has died 300 years ago.
I didn't mean that PARTICULAR whitey, I meant whitey in general. And it was really just me being my witty, sardonic self. Not totally serious.
well that only shows how unrelevant this book is, due to zeitgeist of our time u gotta be a real jerk to relate or like robinson, it may be classic and had a great impact on lit but its not a great book by any means, not only crusoe is a self-righteous prick but also this book is real boring (like the proccess of making 3454545 fences when there was like 0 ppl on an island and no wild animals too)
i agree with Melissa, lol at renamed friday i thought the same he didnt even bother to ask his name, and the whole "friday was so happy to be my lifetime slave" thing was rediculous but what killed me is when robinson suggested to make clothes for friday and friday started jumping of excitement like finally he gets pants, jacket, furry hat, furry umbrella etc ha ha right everybody in the tropics just dream of clothes, and also that god part when robinson stated that god doesnt sit on a mountain that its all bullshit and how dare they tell such a lie when an actual god sits on the cloud! ha ha
I have a problem with this point:
"Then, after he's been alone for 24 years, he sees a footprint in the sand, and he totally freaks, and he becomes convinced it must belong to the devil."
Maybe it's because you (not a religious freak, I assume) haven't been alone for 24 years that you wouldn't react like Crusoe.
i actually thought he would be happy to see that footprint after 24 yrs afterall but no he ended up making another fence (some hobby of his)
Robinson Crusoe *isn't* an adventure/survival story; it's a story of an isolated man's spiritual journey. And, yes, it's something of a snoozer for many modern readers.
I suppose that's why abridged versions usually extract "the good parts" into an adventure/survival story, thereby enchanting twelve-year-olds and shocking those same kids when they try the full-length version.
ETA: Oh, and I'm a different Melissa from the original reviewer.
I am really glad that my review has elicited such a response. I must say, I wrote it about two years ago and it STILL makes me laugh.
I really liked your review! but I didn't agree with it; there wasn't an option to disagree, only 'like' so I clicked on that.
Leftbanker wrote: "Criticizing people's attitudes with a couple hundred years of hindsight seems about as silly as making fun of the way they dressed back then. Of course we are all tolerant in our age but that is ju..."
Juna wrote: "I can't say I share your opinion in the matter, but that is maybe because I have read this book during the perfect age to read such books : when you are 12! Now, as much as I try to respect other's..."
Well said.
Part of the reason why I love this book (at least after having re-read it a couple of times since I was 14 or so) is BECAUSE Robinson Crusoe is such a trembling, clueless, wimpy dick-head.
Your review pretty much sums up how I feel about the book, and you said it better than I did, too.
And also, Heather said: "I also was amazed by how he just left those other stranded sailors on the island at the end. Ridiculous."
This. Totally this.
Written nearly 300 years ago...It deserves every merit it can receive. I hate this sort of mocking 'review'. Just to be clear, I placed review in commas in mockery of the review itself. Appreciate it not for individual elements but the complete effect it has had. Also, slavery I'm sure was a common thing then, so criticising it for that really is a bad case of misunderstanding. A seriously seminal book.
Melissa wrote: "I am really glad that my review has elicited such a response. I must say, I wrote it about two years ago and it STILL makes me laugh."
I love it--I just read it out loud to my husband and we were both cracking up. He's getting his degree in education and had to read the book this summer for an accelerated course. Which means, my days have been filled with "Lemme tell you what this idiot is doing now..." moments. I feel like this book would have been more appropriately titled "An Imbecile on an Island". It also appears that Defoe may be the inventor of deus ex machina.
...I of course was bored while reading this, but I didn't know people actually LIKED it. Who ARE you people??!
"I had never thought like this before."
Go read Treasure Island, good lord.
a review that starts out with "kill whitey" is a bit over the top. if we are talking about slave trading and other atrocities, we can lump in the whole human race. "whitey" does not have a monopoly on man's inhumanity to man.
to take issue with a seminal novel, that was written 300 years ago is truly unfair. times have changed - thankfully, but i feel to be fair, you have to read a book in the context of the times in which it was written. yet it is good to see a change in awareness and how we treat one another now.
though i may disagree with your criticism, i appreciate your sharing your views.
To be fair, building fences is very complicated, and a difficult craft to master.
Very different accomplishment as compared to, say, clearing brush with a chainsaw in a deserted, high-security wasteland ...
Good contrarian review. Next up, try the Bible itself, love to hear your breakdown on that one...
Power, privilege & affluence alter the rules of the game; the colonial trade was brutal, genocidal, remorseless.
Harder to see it then, perhaps, but for literature to condone, exonerate that imbalance is wrong in any age, then or now.
No of course it wasn't written in that spirit, but when something is revealed to have a rotten underbelly you can't ever go backwards again and see it as charming & quaint 'for it's day'....
It is what it is, and what it is -- is self-referential white-colonial exceptionalism, in classic religiously-justified mode.
When there's not much alternative, when there isn't really any other system realistically in play, sure. But certain of the practitioners even then knew full well what they were operating.
Not to condemn everything that happens when something is wrong with the system-- no progress could ever be made -- but once recognized, it can't be wallpapered. And I think we're still in the process, in the learning curve of that transition.
So there is room for all kinds of lit analysis, and maybe with luck the appreciative balances the critical.
(I'd still like to see a good solid contemporary & non-apologetic explication of the Bible (every bit as much as one of the Koran and the Torah))
Melissa Balick: "I wrote it about two years ago and it STILL makes me laugh."
it makes me vomit in its lack of contextual relativism...
Fuck. Now I know what I've got to look forward to. You think I could pass a college lit course if I just SparkNote the rest?
This review is a sad reflection on American education today..... 'emotional payoff'??? God give me strength....
I have little doubt that I'm at least equally as clever, well-read, and educated as you are, Clare. So, please, do tell, what is wrong with expecting a book to come to a satisfying conclusion?
Well, considering it was the first ever novel published, I'm sure the many expectations we've come to place on them these days surely wasn't as religiously known as right now. But for a person so assured of their cleverness and education(which isn't what's being attacked here), you're fairly adept at misunderstanding the concept of context.
I read Don Quixote, which came out previously. It's far better/more satisfying. And, for the record, Clare explicitly attacked my education.
'American education,' was what was said. Implicit. Not very cloaked, but still not direct. Not that I really am interested. You're getting what you deserve for being so foolish. Ah yes, my bad about the date. Well, shall we say there weren't many examples prior to 'Crusoe' going around for Defoe to derive blueprints from? And because I'm sure translations weren't big at the time, Don Quixote probably didn't pleasure Defoe's eyes(unless Defoe spoke Spanish, in which case, I'm trumped). Plus, one opinion can't just classify whether one book beats another. You would need unanimous agreement. I haven't read Don Quixote, but plan to, and imagine it will be better(or at least seem to be, as a man alone for decades can become tedious) than Robinson. So ultimately you'll probably be right about that. I'm not here for the sake of the argument, but I am - like a lot of others, presumably - against idiotic attacks from completely wrong angles. Especially from an educated person(not said in a mocking tone, either, I really mean that). People who read Don Quixote(and others) don't spew thrash. Hold yourself to higher standards.
I just want to put in that Homer had a monster head start and you don't see The Iliad being boring as all hell.
Ha! "What [I] deserve" indeed! I guess I deserve an inordinate amount of attention for my review, not to mention the most "likes" by users, causing it to be the first review seen when you click on this book!
In regards to foolishness, I just thought I'd let you know that your previous comment where you said "slavery I'm sure was a common thing then, so criticising [sic] it for that reason is a bad case of misunderstanding" received a great deal of guffawing among my facebook friends when I posted a link to this review, the response to which continues to impress me. First, because by saying "I'm sure," you show that you were not, in fact, sure, which is utterly silly. But more because my friends felt that one has a moral responsibility to think critically about the common practices of the present day. For instance, homophobia is common today, but that does not excuse Uganda attempting to pass a law to execute homosexuals. And eating fish is common, but that does not stop me from trying desperately to raise awareness about the quickly depleting fish stocks and emptying oceans! That said, if you read my review carefully, you'll see that, in fact, although I make fun of Crusoe's desire to go out and capture slaves after he'd crashed ships so often (and, in fact, spent some time as a slave himself), my criticism of the book really centers on its lack of realism in how happy Friday is to be a slave and how poorly it addresses the philosophical questions that would inevitably arise when one is shipwrecked alone on an island for years and then rescued when the world you left believes you to be dead.
Whatever. I wrote this on my phone, so I hope it's not too full of typos!
I'm not American. Criticising is correct. For me and for you. Also, I was just making a point. Although I'm glad I'm not friends with people who 'guffaw'. You mean laugh? Oh, but you used guffaw, so you're clearly very witty. And on Facebook? So it's obviously a legitimate guffaw. And the likes you got for the review is, as said above, another sad reflection on the seriousness of the people who liked it. Or just an indication that people like funny, sardonic things, even if they're completely wide of the mark.
And talking about Uganda(horrible, yes) and depleting fish levels(probably just a little lower on my list, after the trees in the rainforest, which makes me want to cry) is impertinent. I've read the review before. It's quite good. But then you realise that what you've done is like approaching a lion with a wasp net and a water gun. I really only wanted to make the point that you shouldn't have lowered yourself by snooping to discard the book's importance. It was your twelve year-old response to the slavery part that struck me. You're a reader, all books have their values. Even the pathetically bad ones.
You really shouldn't be so childish as to post stuff like that on Facebook, either. Or do you just need the reassurance from your coven? But we've clearly degenerated away from the point. We're just in a battle to have the final word now. But if you're going to continue, please do on your phone. You're so avant-garde!
How is it immature to share a review you wrote of Robinson Crusoe on facebook? Goodreads automatically puts your stuff on facebook, unless you opt out!
I can tell you are just angry now. You've been saying some weird, nonsensical things for a while now. Avant-garde?? Ha. It's ok. I'll refer you back up to my earlier link. Please see above.
Looking at your picture, though, Jason, you're cute! Although only 21 -- too bad. Still, if you're ever in the US of A, look me up. I'll fight about literature with you anytime.
:)
Sadly my other half took that glorious photo of me. I'm extremely fortunate. But by childish, I didn't mean the act in itself, it's the motive behind it. And whatever that facebook option is, I'm sure I must have declined. I have few friends who appreciate the written word. Also, about being angry. I'm angry all the time. There's limitless reasons to be dissatisfied. And I have no clue what link you're talking about. My attention is severely short and I haven't the patience to go back over things. But this has been fun. A little conflict is never a bore. But I thank you for the compliment, truly. Such things are a rarity. (Admission to make: in the composition of this, my lack of focus was beaten by curiosity. I looked for the link. I laughed.)
The motive was just, "Hey, check out this hilarious review I wrote years ago and how much controversy it continues to generate!" not "Let's all make fun of that young Irish lad Jason!" Of that much, I can assure you! Anyway, that's sad that your friends don't dig books. Whenever someone tells me they don't like to read, I don't say anything, but I think to myself, "No way I'm being facebook friends with YOU!" ;)
Angry all the time, huh? Hopefully you'll chill eventually, and some stranger's review of Robinson Crusoe won't get your goat anymore. But at least my link made you laugh!
Oh I wasn't feeling victimised, so don't worry. And I get angry over pettier things than reviews on here. Example: the way a certain newsreader on tv turns his head when his voice makes inflections. Smug fuck. But thank you for saying 'Irish lad' and not 'Irish guy'.
Crusoe and his ilk were only copying the North African Slavers of their times and before. Ottoman & Arab fleet raiding up and down the Mediterranean, then getting support from their enemy's enemy.
I've just finished Robinson Crusoe, yes there are elements that make us cringe in this day and age but when you consider that it was one of the first novels written in the English language and an adventure story to boot I thought it was a great read. 300 years ago people were given a story of hope and a vision of exotic lands that they would never visit. Defoe did seem to have a problem knowing just where to end his story,but I thought there were some profound statements within the pages, and his discovery of the footprint was very frightening for him indeed. I thought the language was very good too, some of the older novels can be very hard to read. I liked it :)
Reading reviews like yours upsets me. What right do we have to condescend to our ancestors like this?
I understand that some feel a duty to respect the emotional considerations of the deceased, but no such barriers confine me. In other words, I'm not overly concerned about offending the dead. But still, Liam, I do understand where you're coming from, and hope you can take the review in the spirit in which I meant it five years ago, which was mostly just to laugh about how absurd I found the book to be, especially in its emotional dense-ness. Honestly, if I wrote it now in my advanced age (hehe), both my tone and style would be more restrained and precise. I'm aware I could edit my original review, but I believe that would be dishonest after all the commentary that resulted from the original review.
Well to be fair I felt a bit daft once I realised how old it was. Have you revisited it since, and if so did your feelings soften towards it at all?
I haven't revisited the book, and I wouldn't say that my feelings toward it in particular have changed, but I would say that my feelings, in general, all tend to soften as I get older. I make a much greater effort nowadays to avoid offending people with my signature unpopular opinions.
This is the problem reading 'classic' novels that the context is gradually lost over time, but story remains and if the text is very good, it will survive.
If we take the example of Lord of the Rings that it is an adventure story, when I read it, it was superb, but the more I have learn. It can be read as a person dealing with depression (or at least one interpretation).
Currently, reading Martin Chuzzlewit, and it is a struggle, but there is a moral waiting to come out, I suspect.
Your review was hilarious (and thought provoking!)
In a polite manner, I disagree with you on the God thing. There's nothing wrong with turning to God, and I know he exists for a fact because He changed my life around and can change around the worst person in the world to become the best. He did it with Paul and He can do it with whoever he pleases. Your review was funny though!
I listened to the audiobook version of this, and by the middle of the book, after he had become the religious zealot and took on Friday, I started saying aloud, "this guy is a really unlikeable asshole!" over and over, until the end of the book. he was pompous, self-righteous, and basically, a real jerk who thought entirely too highly of himself. yes, I know he's s a character in a book; but his characterization was soo fleshed-out, I really began the despise the guy. FRIDAY was much more likeable, as a human being.
Melissa I have to admit, your review is just insanely hilarious. Although I couldn't agree with everything you said. But yet I can't stop laughing up to this very moment "We don't care about the wolves and dancing bear!" that's just genius, LOL.
back to top
I can't say I share your opinion in the matter, but that is maybe because I have read this book during the perfect age to read such books : when you are 12! Now, as much as I try to respect other's opinions , you have to forgive me but I had to add that your indignation towards the political incorrectness of Defoe is unpardonable considering that the "whitey" has died 300 years ago.
I didn't mean that PARTICULAR whitey, I meant whitey in general. And it was really just me being my witty, sardonic self. Not totally serious.
well that only shows how unrelevant this book is, due to zeitgeist of our time u gotta be a real jerk to relate or like robinson, it may be classic and had a great impact on lit but its not a great book by any means, not only crusoe is a self-righteous prick but also this book is real boring (like the proccess of making 3454545 fences when there was like 0 ppl on an island and no wild animals too)i agree with Melissa, lol at renamed friday i thought the same he didnt even bother to ask his name, and the whole "friday was so happy to be my lifetime slave" thing was rediculous but what killed me is when robinson suggested to make clothes for friday and friday started jumping of excitement like finally he gets pants, jacket, furry hat, furry umbrella etc ha ha right everybody in the tropics just dream of clothes, and also that god part when robinson stated that god doesnt sit on a mountain that its all bullshit and how dare they tell such a lie when an actual god sits on the cloud! ha ha
I have a problem with this point:"Then, after he's been alone for 24 years, he sees a footprint in the sand, and he totally freaks, and he becomes convinced it must belong to the devil."
Maybe it's because you (not a religious freak, I assume) haven't been alone for 24 years that you wouldn't react like Crusoe.
i actually thought he would be happy to see that footprint after 24 yrs afterall but no he ended up making another fence (some hobby of his)
Robinson Crusoe *isn't* an adventure/survival story; it's a story of an isolated man's spiritual journey. And, yes, it's something of a snoozer for many modern readers.I suppose that's why abridged versions usually extract "the good parts" into an adventure/survival story, thereby enchanting twelve-year-olds and shocking those same kids when they try the full-length version.
ETA: Oh, and I'm a different Melissa from the original reviewer.
I am really glad that my review has elicited such a response. I must say, I wrote it about two years ago and it STILL makes me laugh.
I really liked your review! but I didn't agree with it; there wasn't an option to disagree, only 'like' so I clicked on that.
Leftbanker wrote: "Criticizing people's attitudes with a couple hundred years of hindsight seems about as silly as making fun of the way they dressed back then. Of course we are all tolerant in our age but that is ju..."Juna wrote: "I can't say I share your opinion in the matter, but that is maybe because I have read this book during the perfect age to read such books : when you are 12! Now, as much as I try to respect other's..."
Well said.
Part of the reason why I love this book (at least after having re-read it a couple of times since I was 14 or so) is BECAUSE Robinson Crusoe is such a trembling, clueless, wimpy dick-head.
Your review pretty much sums up how I feel about the book, and you said it better than I did, too.And also, Heather said: "I also was amazed by how he just left those other stranded sailors on the island at the end. Ridiculous."
This. Totally this.
Written nearly 300 years ago...It deserves every merit it can receive. I hate this sort of mocking 'review'. Just to be clear, I placed review in commas in mockery of the review itself. Appreciate it not for individual elements but the complete effect it has had. Also, slavery I'm sure was a common thing then, so criticising it for that really is a bad case of misunderstanding. A seriously seminal book.
Melissa wrote: "I am really glad that my review has elicited such a response. I must say, I wrote it about two years ago and it STILL makes me laugh."I love it--I just read it out loud to my husband and we were both cracking up. He's getting his degree in education and had to read the book this summer for an accelerated course. Which means, my days have been filled with "Lemme tell you what this idiot is doing now..." moments. I feel like this book would have been more appropriately titled "An Imbecile on an Island". It also appears that Defoe may be the inventor of deus ex machina.
...I of course was bored while reading this, but I didn't know people actually LIKED it. Who ARE you people??!"I had never thought like this before."
Go read Treasure Island, good lord.
a review that starts out with "kill whitey" is a bit over the top. if we are talking about slave trading and other atrocities, we can lump in the whole human race. "whitey" does not have a monopoly on man's inhumanity to man.to take issue with a seminal novel, that was written 300 years ago is truly unfair. times have changed - thankfully, but i feel to be fair, you have to read a book in the context of the times in which it was written. yet it is good to see a change in awareness and how we treat one another now.
though i may disagree with your criticism, i appreciate your sharing your views.
To be fair, building fences is very complicated, and a difficult craft to master. Very different accomplishment as compared to, say, clearing brush with a chainsaw in a deserted, high-security wasteland ...
Good contrarian review. Next up, try the Bible itself, love to hear your breakdown on that one...
Power, privilege & affluence alter the rules of the game; the colonial trade was brutal, genocidal, remorseless. Harder to see it then, perhaps, but for literature to condone, exonerate that imbalance is wrong in any age, then or now.
No of course it wasn't written in that spirit, but when something is revealed to have a rotten underbelly you can't ever go backwards again and see it as charming & quaint 'for it's day'....
It is what it is, and what it is -- is self-referential white-colonial exceptionalism, in classic religiously-justified mode.
When there's not much alternative, when there isn't really any other system realistically in play, sure. But certain of the practitioners even then knew full well what they were operating. Not to condemn everything that happens when something is wrong with the system-- no progress could ever be made -- but once recognized, it can't be wallpapered. And I think we're still in the process, in the learning curve of that transition.
So there is room for all kinds of lit analysis, and maybe with luck the appreciative balances the critical.
(I'd still like to see a good solid contemporary & non-apologetic explication of the Bible (every bit as much as one of the Koran and the Torah))
Melissa Balick: "I wrote it about two years ago and it STILL makes me laugh."it makes me vomit in its lack of contextual relativism...
Fuck. Now I know what I've got to look forward to. You think I could pass a college lit course if I just SparkNote the rest?
This review is a sad reflection on American education today..... 'emotional payoff'??? God give me strength....
I have little doubt that I'm at least equally as clever, well-read, and educated as you are, Clare. So, please, do tell, what is wrong with expecting a book to come to a satisfying conclusion?
Well, considering it was the first ever novel published, I'm sure the many expectations we've come to place on them these days surely wasn't as religiously known as right now. But for a person so assured of their cleverness and education(which isn't what's being attacked here), you're fairly adept at misunderstanding the concept of context.
I read Don Quixote, which came out previously. It's far better/more satisfying. And, for the record, Clare explicitly attacked my education.
'American education,' was what was said. Implicit. Not very cloaked, but still not direct. Not that I really am interested. You're getting what you deserve for being so foolish. Ah yes, my bad about the date. Well, shall we say there weren't many examples prior to 'Crusoe' going around for Defoe to derive blueprints from? And because I'm sure translations weren't big at the time, Don Quixote probably didn't pleasure Defoe's eyes(unless Defoe spoke Spanish, in which case, I'm trumped). Plus, one opinion can't just classify whether one book beats another. You would need unanimous agreement. I haven't read Don Quixote, but plan to, and imagine it will be better(or at least seem to be, as a man alone for decades can become tedious) than Robinson. So ultimately you'll probably be right about that. I'm not here for the sake of the argument, but I am - like a lot of others, presumably - against idiotic attacks from completely wrong angles. Especially from an educated person(not said in a mocking tone, either, I really mean that). People who read Don Quixote(and others) don't spew thrash. Hold yourself to higher standards.
I just want to put in that Homer had a monster head start and you don't see The Iliad being boring as all hell.
Ha! "What [I] deserve" indeed! I guess I deserve an inordinate amount of attention for my review, not to mention the most "likes" by users, causing it to be the first review seen when you click on this book!In regards to foolishness, I just thought I'd let you know that your previous comment where you said "slavery I'm sure was a common thing then, so criticising [sic] it for that reason is a bad case of misunderstanding" received a great deal of guffawing among my facebook friends when I posted a link to this review, the response to which continues to impress me. First, because by saying "I'm sure," you show that you were not, in fact, sure, which is utterly silly. But more because my friends felt that one has a moral responsibility to think critically about the common practices of the present day. For instance, homophobia is common today, but that does not excuse Uganda attempting to pass a law to execute homosexuals. And eating fish is common, but that does not stop me from trying desperately to raise awareness about the quickly depleting fish stocks and emptying oceans! That said, if you read my review carefully, you'll see that, in fact, although I make fun of Crusoe's desire to go out and capture slaves after he'd crashed ships so often (and, in fact, spent some time as a slave himself), my criticism of the book really centers on its lack of realism in how happy Friday is to be a slave and how poorly it addresses the philosophical questions that would inevitably arise when one is shipwrecked alone on an island for years and then rescued when the world you left believes you to be dead.
Whatever. I wrote this on my phone, so I hope it's not too full of typos!
I'm not American. Criticising is correct. For me and for you. Also, I was just making a point. Although I'm glad I'm not friends with people who 'guffaw'. You mean laugh? Oh, but you used guffaw, so you're clearly very witty. And on Facebook? So it's obviously a legitimate guffaw. And the likes you got for the review is, as said above, another sad reflection on the seriousness of the people who liked it. Or just an indication that people like funny, sardonic things, even if they're completely wide of the mark. And talking about Uganda(horrible, yes) and depleting fish levels(probably just a little lower on my list, after the trees in the rainforest, which makes me want to cry) is impertinent. I've read the review before. It's quite good. But then you realise that what you've done is like approaching a lion with a wasp net and a water gun. I really only wanted to make the point that you shouldn't have lowered yourself by snooping to discard the book's importance. It was your twelve year-old response to the slavery part that struck me. You're a reader, all books have their values. Even the pathetically bad ones.
You really shouldn't be so childish as to post stuff like that on Facebook, either. Or do you just need the reassurance from your coven? But we've clearly degenerated away from the point. We're just in a battle to have the final word now. But if you're going to continue, please do on your phone. You're so avant-garde!
How is it immature to share a review you wrote of Robinson Crusoe on facebook? Goodreads automatically puts your stuff on facebook, unless you opt out!I can tell you are just angry now. You've been saying some weird, nonsensical things for a while now. Avant-garde?? Ha. It's ok. I'll refer you back up to my earlier link. Please see above.
Looking at your picture, though, Jason, you're cute! Although only 21 -- too bad. Still, if you're ever in the US of A, look me up. I'll fight about literature with you anytime.:)
Sadly my other half took that glorious photo of me. I'm extremely fortunate. But by childish, I didn't mean the act in itself, it's the motive behind it. And whatever that facebook option is, I'm sure I must have declined. I have few friends who appreciate the written word. Also, about being angry. I'm angry all the time. There's limitless reasons to be dissatisfied. And I have no clue what link you're talking about. My attention is severely short and I haven't the patience to go back over things. But this has been fun. A little conflict is never a bore. But I thank you for the compliment, truly. Such things are a rarity. (Admission to make: in the composition of this, my lack of focus was beaten by curiosity. I looked for the link. I laughed.)
The motive was just, "Hey, check out this hilarious review I wrote years ago and how much controversy it continues to generate!" not "Let's all make fun of that young Irish lad Jason!" Of that much, I can assure you! Anyway, that's sad that your friends don't dig books. Whenever someone tells me they don't like to read, I don't say anything, but I think to myself, "No way I'm being facebook friends with YOU!" ;)Angry all the time, huh? Hopefully you'll chill eventually, and some stranger's review of Robinson Crusoe won't get your goat anymore. But at least my link made you laugh!
Oh I wasn't feeling victimised, so don't worry. And I get angry over pettier things than reviews on here. Example: the way a certain newsreader on tv turns his head when his voice makes inflections. Smug fuck. But thank you for saying 'Irish lad' and not 'Irish guy'.
Crusoe and his ilk were only copying the North African Slavers of their times and before. Ottoman & Arab fleet raiding up and down the Mediterranean, then getting support from their enemy's enemy.
I've just finished Robinson Crusoe, yes there are elements that make us cringe in this day and age but when you consider that it was one of the first novels written in the English language and an adventure story to boot I thought it was a great read. 300 years ago people were given a story of hope and a vision of exotic lands that they would never visit. Defoe did seem to have a problem knowing just where to end his story,but I thought there were some profound statements within the pages, and his discovery of the footprint was very frightening for him indeed. I thought the language was very good too, some of the older novels can be very hard to read. I liked it :)
Reading reviews like yours upsets me. What right do we have to condescend to our ancestors like this?
I understand that some feel a duty to respect the emotional considerations of the deceased, but no such barriers confine me. In other words, I'm not overly concerned about offending the dead. But still, Liam, I do understand where you're coming from, and hope you can take the review in the spirit in which I meant it five years ago, which was mostly just to laugh about how absurd I found the book to be, especially in its emotional dense-ness. Honestly, if I wrote it now in my advanced age (hehe), both my tone and style would be more restrained and precise. I'm aware I could edit my original review, but I believe that would be dishonest after all the commentary that resulted from the original review.
Well to be fair I felt a bit daft once I realised how old it was. Have you revisited it since, and if so did your feelings soften towards it at all?
I haven't revisited the book, and I wouldn't say that my feelings toward it in particular have changed, but I would say that my feelings, in general, all tend to soften as I get older. I make a much greater effort nowadays to avoid offending people with my signature unpopular opinions.
This is the problem reading 'classic' novels that the context is gradually lost over time, but story remains and if the text is very good, it will survive. If we take the example of Lord of the Rings that it is an adventure story, when I read it, it was superb, but the more I have learn. It can be read as a person dealing with depression (or at least one interpretation).
Currently, reading Martin Chuzzlewit, and it is a struggle, but there is a moral waiting to come out, I suspect.
Your review was hilarious (and thought provoking!)
In a polite manner, I disagree with you on the God thing. There's nothing wrong with turning to God, and I know he exists for a fact because He changed my life around and can change around the worst person in the world to become the best. He did it with Paul and He can do it with whoever he pleases. Your review was funny though!
I listened to the audiobook version of this, and by the middle of the book, after he had become the religious zealot and took on Friday, I started saying aloud, "this guy is a really unlikeable asshole!" over and over, until the end of the book. he was pompous, self-righteous, and basically, a real jerk who thought entirely too highly of himself. yes, I know he's s a character in a book; but his characterization was soo fleshed-out, I really began the despise the guy. FRIDAY was much more likeable, as a human being.
Melissa I have to admit, your review is just insanely hilarious. Although I couldn't agree with everything you said. But yet I can't stop laughing up to this very moment "We don't care about the wolves and dancing bear!" that's just genius, LOL.
I also was amazed by how he just left those other stranded sailors on the island at the end. Ridiculous.
Why don't more people see the book in this light. I understand the historical significance of the book, that certainly doesn't make it a good (or engaging) read.