Write a blog on comparative and critical analysis of Daniel Defoe’s ‘Robinson Crusoe’ and J. M. Coetzee’s ‘Foe’.
Robinson Crusoe | FULL MOVIE | Daniel Defoe | Classic Literature Adventure
Introduction
Historical and literary contexts
Thus: Crusoe is the original novel of its era; Foe is a late-20th century text aware of that original and determined to question it.
Comparative thematic analysis
Let us now compare both texts along four major thematic axes.
1. Survival, Self-Reliance and Individualism
In Robinson Crusoe, the core narrative centres on Crusoe’s shipwreck and long years of solitude on the island. He must survive by his wits: salvaging shipwrecked goods, building shelter, tending animals, planting crops, etc. The story illustrates his industriousness and eventual mastery over nature and circumstance. As one commentary puts it: “his intense individualism is inseparable from his painful isolation.” Crusoe’s Christian faith plays a role too: his trials lead him to reflection and repentance; survival is bound up with Providence.
In contrast, Foe deliberately unsettles this heroic self-reliance narrative. Susan Barton arrives on the island with Cruso and Friday (already there). As critique of the survival myth, Coetzee emphasises the tedium, the repetitiveness, the existential weight of life that is far less glamorous than adventure literature might imply. GradeSaver’s theme summary of Foe states: “While experiences of the slave trade … one of the most important … the theme of slavery…” and “Cruso has renounced all attention to personal history … committed himself to the Sisyphean task of levelling the ground into useless terraces.” In Foe, the idea of survival becomes entangled with silence, boredom, powerlessness, and the limits of narrative rather than triumph. In effect, Coetzee problematises the idea that the cast-away becoming master of his realm is uncomplicated or heroic.
Hence: where Defoe glorifies (though not without tension) individual mastery and self-improvement, Coetzee uses the same situation to question whether such mastery is real, whose mastery it is, and what it hides (dependency, alienation, authority).
2. Colonialism, The ‘Other’ and Power Relations
Robinson Crusoe has been widely read through the lens of colonialism and empire: Crusoe lands on an “uninhabited island”, meets indigenous “savages,” meets Friday whom he “rescues” and renames, cleanses and Christianises. For example, Britannica notes: Crusoe “gradually turns ‘my Man Friday’ into an English-speaking Christian.” More broadly, Crusoe’s relationship with the island becomes one of mastery, cultivation, transformation, familiar to colonial tropes: land to be tamed, nature to be rendered useful, indigenous presence to be subordinated. Critics note that Crusoe’s narrative can be read as allegory of empire and England’s burgeoning global power.
In Foe, Coetzee explicitly engages this colonial dimension. The novel emphasises the silencing of Friday (he cannot speak), thereby foregrounding how colonial narratives suppress indigenous voices. One article states: “Coetzee’s Foe … presents a counter-narrative that subverts its colonialist and patriarchal undertones.” Another describes how “the violence of the Empire” is shown in Foe—“the native [is] … silenced … the barbaric face of the colonisers.” Coetzee does not simply recast Crusoe’s tale, he inverts and problematises it: the island is not peaceful, the other is not simply grateful, the authorial voice is unstable, and the myth of benevolent coloniser is exposed as violence. For example, Susan Barton’s voice is mediated, suppressed; Friday is non-speaking; Cruso is a flawed figure. Thus: Foe engages with colonial power, the erasure of the other, and the instability of the colonial narrative.
Therefore the comparative: Defoe’s novel reflects (and in many ways embodies) colonial ideology of mastery, civilization and transformation; Coetzee’s novel unsettles those ideologies, drawing attention to their construction, violence and silences.
3. Language, Voice, Authorship and Narrative Authority
In Robinson Crusoe, the story is told as a first-person narrative by Crusoe (presented as himself), giving the illusion of direct witness and authenticity. Crusoe assumes mastery not only of his environment but of the narrative: he names the island, names Friday, calls himself “master”. He controls language, meaning, the progression of events. His voice dominates. observes that Crusoe prefers to depict himself as an “ordinary sensible man” though his story is anything but ordinary.
In Foe, Coetzee plays with authorial voice and narrative authority in multiple ways. Susan Barton tells part of the story (first-person) but the author “Foe” (standing in for Defoe) wishes to rewrite her experience, balancing truth, scandal, marketable story, author’s control. Friday is silent: his tongue is cut. Language becomes a site of power: who gets to speak, who is heard, who is named. One theme summary: “the powers and functions of language are continually examined … Friday’s inability to speak brings up questions about the usefulness of language.” Moreover an article states: “This paper … intends to inspect how the issue of authorship and authority is projected …” Thus Coetzee uses the structure of narrative to expose hierarchies of voice (“author” vs “subject”, “white” vs “colonised”, “male” vs “female”) and the arbitrary nature of narrative.
Comparatively: Defoe’s narrative assumes a stable voice and authorial subjectivity; Coetzee’s narrative problematises that assumption, making visible the gaps, the silences, the contingent nature of authorship and authority.
4. Gender, Perspective and the Marginalised Subject
Robinson Crusoe is notably masculine in orientation: its narrator is male, the adventures are male-driven, the encounter with the “other” is mediated by Crusoe’s European Christian gaze. The female presence (his mother, father’s advice, wife) is marginal. The prevailing perspective is masculine, European, colonial.
In Foe, Coetzee introduces Susan Barton as central narrator and subject. The novel thus shifts perspective: the female castaway, the experience of being lost, shipwrecked, marooned alongside the male. Susan wants to tell her story, but the male author (Foe) wants to shape it. Feminist critique has recognised this: one article argues that although Susan does find a “voice” in parts of the text, her constant submission to male characters ends up showing a “frail woman who defines her existence … relative to men.” Moreover, Foe’s treatment of Friday as mute can be linked to critique of both colonialism and patriarchal silencing. The interplay of gender, voice, authorship in Foe complicates the original Crusoe myth.
Thus: while Defoe’s novel assumes a male, colonial subject as normative, Coetzee unsettles gendered assumptions by giving space (and problematising) female perspective, but also indicating that even this re-perspective remains enmeshed in structures of power and voice.
Critical Reflections: What Foe does to Crusoe
Having compared major themes, what conclusions can we draw about how Foe interacts with Crusoe, and what it achieves?
-
Intertextual rewriting and subversionCoetzee’s Foe is not simply a retelling of Crusoe, but an act of rewriting — a postmodern and postcolonial manoeuvre that uses Crusoe as its point of departure. As one scholar writes, “Re-writing as a postmodern technique … Coetzee’s Foe … in which Coetzee rewrites the old novel into a new one …” In so doing, Coetzee makes us aware of how Crusoe’s assumptions (about mastery, voice, colonial subjectivity) are contingent and ideological. For example the very name “Foe” echoes (and inverts) “Defoe”, thereby signalling the critique.
-
Exposing silences and marginalised voicesCrusoe’s narrative at times overlooks or suppresses the voices of the “other” (Friday, indigenous peoples). Foe makes those silences explicit: Friday’s tongue is cut; Susan’s story is mediated by a male author; the island is not simply a site of triumph but of waiting, silence, tedium. Coetzee thus draws attention to what the original either ignores or normalises. The result is a novel that forces the reader to ask: whose story is being told? Who names? Who is silent?
-
Critique of colonial/authorial authorityCrusoe’s story is entangled with colonial logics: occupant as settler, nature as resource, other people as subordinate. Coetzee unpicks those logics by making the colonial framework visible, shifting perspective, destabilising authority. A journal article describes Foe as a “counter-narrative” that “reveals the hidden underpinnings in the colonial discourse.” Thus Foe invites us to read Crusoe not simply as adventure but as ideological.
-
Complexifying individuality and voiceWhile Crusoe celebrates individual self-reliance (within a Christian/Protestant horizon), Foe problematises the idea of the autonomous subject. The narrators are not independent masters of their story-world; they are subject to language, editing, other voices, silences. The romantic sense of “I survived and mastered” is undermined by uncertainty, mediation, and power relationships.
-
Gender and the shifting of perspectiveThe shift to Susan Barton as narrator in Foe brings gender into focus and shows how stories historically exclude or subordinate female experience. It invites us to reconsider Crusoe’s omissions and what it meant to be castaway from a female standpoint. But Coetzee does not simply fill the gap cheerfully: he complicates it, showing that voice itself is fraught.
Some caveats and complexities
Of course, it is also fair to note that Defoe’s Crusoe is not a simple endorsement of colonialism or heroic individualism without tension. Critics observe that Crusoe’s repenting, his sense of dependence upon Providence, his fails and vulnerabilities, all complicate the narrative. For example, Crusoe’s moral journey, the role of religion, his isolation and loneliness all hint at limits to mastery. Yet the framework remains deeply shaped by its time.
Likewise, Coetzee’s Foe is not simply an anti‐Crusoe tract or facile inversion; it is subtle, elusive, open‐ended. The novel resists easy interpretation, leaves gaps (especially around Friday’s silence) and invites reflection rather than closure. This means that any reading must attend to its complexities: narrative puzzles, the role of Susan’s unreliability, the metafictional games, the ethical questions of representation.
Conclusion
To conclude: read side-by-side, Robinson Crusoe and Foe comprise a dialogue across centuries between two visions of the castaway, the island, and the story of survival. Defoe’s novel offers a foundational vision of individualism, survival, colonial encounter and Christian introspection — a key text in the emergence of the modern novel and colonial imagination. Coetzee’s novel, arriving in a world shaped by decolonisation, postcolonial critique and narrative self-reflexivity, uses that foundation to probe what was left unsaid, what was silenced, what was presupposed. In this sense Foe performs a critical function: it does not simply entertain us with a new adventure, but asks us to question the old adventures, to recognise the power dynamics behind storytelling, to give voice to the voiceless, and to reconsider the meaning of mastery, survival, and authorship.
No comments:
Post a Comment