Reading the Classics discussion

Discussion thread for week 2 of Robinson Crusoe. The calendar is updated with the schedule, which is set for 3 weeks on/3 weeks off.

Chapter 5: I really enjoy the ingenuity of Crusoe. I love hearing about how he survived those early days on the island. The grindstone in particular is ingenious. His forethought is great as well. He knows he only has a limited amount of ammunition and needs to figure out his food situation early on before he runs out. Crusoe is a fascinating character so far!

Chapter 6: I feel like the phrase “There are no atheists in foxholes,” can explain Crusoe’s sudden conversion. The way he describes himself would lead the reader to believe he is one of the most wicked people to ever live, but in reality he hasn’t done anything exceedingly bad especially not be the standards of the time (being involved in slavery doesn’t look good to modern eyes.) I think that more than anything, especially when lying on what he probably thought was his deathbed, he needed something like the comfort of religion to help him make it through and give him hope.

I really liked the opening of Robinson Crusoe. I think the first person narrative brings us close to Crusoe. He speaks with authority about his life but without a lot of pretense.

I have no idea if first person narrative was new in the writing of novels but Gulliver’s Travels, written about the same time, is in the voice of Gulliver.

There is a nice article in Wikipedia about first person narratives and it’s strengths and weaknesses in novels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-p...

One reason I find Crusoe interesting, is hearing the attitudes about slavery, living on the high seas, conquering of new worlds (more on this later).

I think Defoe has tried to make the story historically correct for the time of Defoe.

As a side read, I read DeFoe’s General History of Pirates. Pirating is closely linked to the history of the transatlantic slave trade, which developed after the discovery of the magnetic compass.

However, in researching, it seems that this history maybe wrongly attributed to DeFoe.

And yes, Crusoe’s ingenuity is very interesting despite his fear and extreme caution in the early years.

How was the General History of Pirates Linda? It seems like they were like hey Defoe’s name will sell so let’s attribute it to him?

I read on Wikipedia that there might be about 200 or so books attributed to DeFoe that were probably not written by him.

The form of the pirate book is a series of historical reports to inform political entities of the general problem of pirates, their life style and methods of operation. The human element of some, good men gone bad, is touching. But for the most part it is a dry series of biographies.

Some of the court cases are interesting to me as there is no separation between religious norms and law.

There are accounts of two women pirates that are interesting.

I guess overall I liked that I have read it. I wish it were authenticated. But it can be dull.

I had a friend who read it and he said the same thing. My edition of Crusoe I’m reading says Defoe has “some 500 books attributed to him on a variety of topics, including politics, geography, crime, religion, economics, marriage, psychology, and superstition.” I could definitely see your stat about half those books being not his as accurate. How could anybody be that prolific?

Yes, and with a quill pen, no computer, Wikipedia, no cut and paste. Or maybe he used 3x5 cards