You have picked a big
question! I guess one place to start is an examination of the relationship between Crusoe and
Man Friday - this is one of the key areas of debate for this kind of question. The relationship
between Crusoe and Man Friday has been examined eagerly by a number of critics, especially in
recent times postcolonialists, who have variously seen their relationship as depicting the worst
of slavery or a genuine mutual respect.
Their relationship certainly seems to
be ambiguous and open to interpretation. There are times when it appears to be almost based on a
father-son type of intimacy, but others suggest that there is a clear master-slave element to
their relationship. This latter perspective is reinforced throughout the text. For example:
"I made him know that his name was to be Friday... I likewise taught him to say
Master". The naming of slaves by their masters was key in Defoe's times, and the fact that
Man Friday never knows the true name of his master indicates an attitude of extreme
superiority.
Man Friday, however, appears to be incredibly grateful to his
servitude to , and places Robinson Crusoe's foot on his head in a manner that "seems was in
token of swearing to be my slave forever." Thus Man Friday's "slavery" might have
been in gratitude for being saved by Robinson Crusoe. Crusoe certainly seems pleased to have Man
Friday with him: "I took him up, and made much of him, and encourag'd him all I
could..." yet we are left unsure whether this is due to any essential goodness in his
nature or just sheer relief at having someone else to talk to, for "they were the first
sound of a Man's voice, mine own excepted, that I had heard, for 25 years."
Thus there are two main views: the master - servant relationship, as evidenced by the
authoritarian way in which Crusoe treats Friday, and the father - son relationship, in that
Crusoe does seem to genuinely care for Friday's well-being.
No comments:
Post a Comment