You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by prairiephlox
Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe
3.0
I always meant to read this book because I love a good maritime adventure and because it’s so frequently mentioned in Wilkie Collins’ “The Moonstone”
I was not disappointed, but then, I’m used to works of this age and works by Daniel Defoe.
Instead of doing a proper review (because I think we all know the outline, at least, of the story and obviously from my rating I enjoyed it well enough) I’m going to address the frequent issues that I see negative reviews write.
1) To say that the natives were cannibals is NOT racist. A lot of the tribes there *were* cannibals. I recognize that in the modern day this is universally frowned on, but those are modern morals. The natives saw nothing intrinsically immoral in eating an enemy’s flesh (they thought they’d get power from it), and this is not a unique idea, and so there is nothing insulting in accusing them of it. Plus this was a legitimate and very real concern of sailor men around this time, and on top of it, sailors tended to be superstitious.
2) The story is too religious. Yes, its religious. Sort of. If you read Moll Flanders or Roxana your opinion on what Defoe was trying to accomplish might change. Not to mention, if you are stuck with a bible by yourself on an island, you will probably either become very religious yourself or go insane.
3) Crusoe is a hypocrite, hated being a slave, trades in slaves. Etc. Yes, obviously. Again, if you read Roxana or Moll Flanders you would realize that Defoe was using Crusoe as a foil against the modern morality of his times.
Was the story slow? Kind of. I don’t understand why Defoe inserted the journal entry after already taking several chapters to explain everything already. Maybe I should give him credit because it *was* purported to be the first novel of the English language and maybe h hadn’t really figure out the formula yet. Still I found his adventures and ingenuity interesting enough. I look forward to re-reading it in a few years.
There are several excellent versions of this audiobook provided for free on Librivox.org.
I was not disappointed, but then, I’m used to works of this age and works by Daniel Defoe.
Instead of doing a proper review (because I think we all know the outline, at least, of the story and obviously from my rating I enjoyed it well enough) I’m going to address the frequent issues that I see negative reviews write.
1) To say that the natives were cannibals is NOT racist. A lot of the tribes there *were* cannibals. I recognize that in the modern day this is universally frowned on, but those are modern morals. The natives saw nothing intrinsically immoral in eating an enemy’s flesh (they thought they’d get power from it), and this is not a unique idea, and so there is nothing insulting in accusing them of it. Plus this was a legitimate and very real concern of sailor men around this time, and on top of it, sailors tended to be superstitious.
2) The story is too religious. Yes, its religious. Sort of. If you read Moll Flanders or Roxana your opinion on what Defoe was trying to accomplish might change. Not to mention, if you are stuck with a bible by yourself on an island, you will probably either become very religious yourself or go insane.
3) Crusoe is a hypocrite, hated being a slave, trades in slaves. Etc. Yes, obviously. Again, if you read Roxana or Moll Flanders you would realize that Defoe was using Crusoe as a foil against the modern morality of his times.
Was the story slow? Kind of. I don’t understand why Defoe inserted the journal entry after already taking several chapters to explain everything already. Maybe I should give him credit because it *was* purported to be the first novel of the English language and maybe h hadn’t really figure out the formula yet. Still I found his adventures and ingenuity interesting enough. I look forward to re-reading it in a few years.
There are several excellent versions of this audiobook provided for free on Librivox.org.