Sunday, 9 July 2017

Robinson Crusoe

A very first capitalist in the novel
There is a long history of a relationship between the novel and economics. As a literary form, the novel is being evolved alongside economic development and also the progressive expansion of the novel is being effective on the economy in a variety of ways. Highlighting some of those mutual effects among novel and the economy, this essay, particularly in the instance of Robinson Crusoe, emphasises on the significant role of capitalism in the process. It is a matter of fact that the novel as the contemporary form of literature, was firstly emerged in Europe, but some scholars further clarify that to a large extent novel improved under the capitalistic domesticity and individualism of the Western Society[1]. The novel, to some extent, is a concomitant result of literary works under capitalism, nevertheless, this essay posits that, as a highly applicable and potential tool of entertainment and propaganda, the novel is also utilised in the economic system other than capitalism.  
Capitalism is one of the foremost themes in the novel of Robinson Crusoe. The protagonist risks experiencing harsh living conditions and extreme isolation, so as a reward to these, he successfully acquires wealth and companionship. Despite the blurb provided by some scholars that “Robinson Crusoe recalls the travelogue and the spiritual autobiography”[2], the very fundamental occurrence is, indeed, the economic shift from lack of proprietorship in the outset of the novel to the fruitfulness by the end. At the beginning of his trip Crusoe leaves with very less amount of money “I carried about £40 in such toys and trifles”[3], but ultimately he returns with great wealth including fine particles of gold, sugar, tobacco, and a tremendous amount of finance “I was now master, all on a sudden, of above £ 5000 sterling in money,”[4] . This is a certain proof that the matter of economy has a central role in this novel and thus supports Watt’s argument that Robinson Crusoe “is not really a primitive nor a: proletarian but a capitalist”[5].  Wealth may not increase in such a dramatic way unless in a capitalistic approach, as Gliserman asserts “capitalism is Crusoe’s brand of alchemy, transforming the worthless (feces)[sic] into gold”[6]. The entire story of Robinson Crusoe is set between two opposite statues, the very antithesis of one another from the economic point of view. This is by all mean a perfect journey in which risks result to rewards and that is the story of a capitalist man.
The relations of the novel and economics can be traced back in society and its reciprocal impacts are observable on the daily life of people throughout history. As any other dreams of the human being, the economic desire may have been reflected in many novels, but the economy itself has also been quite persuasive to lead people in getting involved with the novel one way or another. Although Alexander Selkirk is thought to be the inspiration for Robinson Crusoe, in the preface of the book Defoe asserts that “the things to be just history of fact”[7]. There might be fundamental changes in the form and principles of the novel since Defoe wrote Robison Crusoe. However, Defoe’s assertion that his novel is entirely real history shows that the economic tendency in writing a novel, to some extent existed from those early ages. Indeed, “a history of fact” is a more serious issue and consequently, it seems to be well received by readers than a visionary work which is merely inspired by a fact. Furthermore, from the historical point of view, writing novels may also lead those from lower class people to make some money. Particularly in the eighteenth-century, as it was cited in the lecture on 29/03/2017, Greenfield states that writing novels provided a new possibility of income generation for those of middle-class people with a common language and subsequently lack of higher agency.[8] Since then, and because of its sufficient potential in publicising art and entertainment, the novel as a literary form has been playing a significant role in the arena of the economic.
There are a variety of ways in which Robinson Crusoe performs as a capitalist. Robinson Crusoe is acting as a profound capitalist rather than an ordinary one, whom in its very basic definition will only possess some capital. Robinson Crusoe, indeed, is not only eager for further possession but he also implements the whole process of production. Following his arrival in Brazil, Crusoe explains the extensive success in plantations of tobacco: “we began to increase, […] so that the third year we planted some tobacco and made each of us a large piece of ground ready for planting canes in the year to come”[9]. Mass production is a major step towards further capitalistic circumstance as Marx posits that “[t]o be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production”[10].  Therefore, Robinson Crusoe’s endeavour in plantation and production of tobacco is a major step towards capitalism. Furthermore, Crusoe for the sake of money previously sold a young man, but soon he comes to realise that it was a “wrong” deal because that young man could have exploited on his newly established plantation. Crusoe says: “I had done wrong in parting with my boy Xury”[11].  His regret is clearly because of losing cheap labour and the possibility of exploitation, which is another intention of a capitalist man. 
Other fundamental human appetites such as sexual attraction, romance, and nostalgia are also overwhelmed by Robinson Crusoe’s capitalistic lifestyle. In his long recalls of the twenty-eight years of isolation, there is not a single word dedicated to sexual desires. On the contrary, Crusoe is almost every day contemplating the ways of possessing and sovereignty. In one instance Crusoe saves the life of a supposedly "savage" man who was being chased by other cannibals. Nevertheless, Crusoe’s attitude is intrinsically capitalistic, because he realises to save the man for a lifetime slavery. In fact, from Crusoe’s point of view this was a barter rather than a homophobic and moralistic act to rescue other man, “[i]t came now very warmly upon my thoughts, and indeed irresistibly, that now was my time to get me a servant”[12]. Following to this, Crusoe arranges the man to be more functional and useful, so Crusoe gives him the name of Friday, teaches him the English language and let him know that cannibalism is wrong. Crusoe calls him as “my man Friday”[13]. However, this may not refer to slavery but obviously implies control, and ownership which is the main aspect of capitalism.
The economy is fundamentally important because it affects almost every aspect of our daily life.  This has turned capitalism into the reality of the modern age. According to Rose the new literary scholars “treat capitalism like sex: as a fact of life. The profit motive […] is a universal human appetite”[14], therefore, capitalism may shape somehow the way we think and the novel cannot be exempted. Nevertheless, regardless of economic system, novelists have to sell their works, and the industry of publications need to be engaged; for that, the relationship of the novel and the economic is inevitable and it may also expand beyond capitalism. The soaring businesses of religious novels share a significant proportion of the economy in some countries. Madasari argues that the public devout shapes the market of the novel in Indonesia, and contends that, the desire for prosperous life, indeed, in a religious theme, is dominated this world’s largest Muslim-majority country[15]. The relation of the novel and economics may examine even further when it comes to involving sacred and political ideologies in those systems other than capitalism. 
In conclusion, there has been a long lasting relationship between the novel and economics, which began from the early times when the novel emerged as a modern literary form in Europe. Although the novel is being transformed in both ways of form and content, its relations to economics has always been centred on this essential fact that writers need their works to be sold. As one of the pioneering protagonist Robinson Crusoe performs profoundly to risk and get reward in relations to the economic, which portrays him as a capitalist. However, the effectiveness of the novel as a powerful tool of publicity and promotion, has expanded its relations to economics in systems other than capitalism as well.  The novel connects to economic from a variety of ways, though as a foremost protagonist Robinson Crusoe appears to act as the very first capitalist in this novel. 
  
Bibliography
Defoe, Daniel. Robinson Crusoe. Victoria 3008, Australia. Penguin Group (Australia), 2010.
Greenfield, Susan C. Mothering Daughters: Novels and the Politics of Family Romance, Frances Burney to Jane Austen. 2003.
Gliserman, M. J. (1990). "Robinson crusoe": The vicissitudes of greed - cannibalism to capitalism. American Imago, 47(3), 197. Accessed March 29, 2017. https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/docview/1289752452?accountid=36155
MacKay, Marina. “Origins of the Novel.” In The Cambridge Introduction to the Novel 21-33. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011.
Madasari, Okky. “Islam, capitalism and literature: The novel as a tool of fundamentalism”. Griffith REVIEW. 49/2, 2015: 80-85. Accessed March 29 2017. <http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=380712999163273;res=IELAPA> ISSN: 1839-2954
Mrx, K. & Engels, F. “Manifesto of the Communist Party” in Texts and Traditions Tutorial Readings Spring 2016, Western Sydney University.
Rose, Jonathan. "Was Capitalism Good for Victorian Literature?" Victorian Studies 46, no. 3 (2004): 489-501.
Watt, Ian P. The Rise of the Novel: Studies in Defoe, Richardson and Fielding. 2nd American ed. Berkeley; [London]: University of Los Angeles Press, 2001.


[1] Greenfield, Mothering Daughters: Novels and the Politics of Family Romance, Frances Burney to Jane Austen.15.
[2] MacKay, Origins of the Novel. 27.
[3] Defoe, Robinson Crusoe. 21.
[4] Defoe, Robinson Crusoe. 278.
[5] Watt, The Rise of the Novel: 87.
[6] Gliserman, Robinson Crusoe: The vicissitudes of greed - cannibalism to capitalism. 211.
[7] Defoe, Robinson Crusoe. 7.
[8] Gourley, The Novel, lecture on 29/03/2017. Slide 6.
[9] Defoe, Robinson Crusoe. 39.
[10] Marx, and Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party. 23.
[11] Defoe, Robinson Crusoe. 39.
[12] Ibid. 199.
[13] Ibid. 203.
[14] Rose, Was Capitalism Good for Victorian Literature? 501.
[15] Madasari, Islam, capitalism and literature: The novel as a tool of fundamentalism. 85.

Friday, 7 July 2017

William Shakespeare

An instance of using a simile
“You may as well use question with the wolf  
Why he hath made the ewe bleat for the lamb;”
In this passage from The Merchant of Venice, “wolf” and “ewe” are not used in their literal meanings as dissimilar animals, but rather used as figures of different human beings. These two lines are from the stanza in which following Shylock’s claim for his bond, Antonio emphasises on Shylock’s hardness and asserts that talking with someone who acts inhuman is useless. In this scene Shylock denies receiving even several times his money back, insisting upon the agreement by which cutting flesh from Antonio’s body is legally confirmed. 
These figurations are grounded on intrinsic hostility between animals in which the cruelty of one results in killing another. As a hungry beast such as wolf, Shylock performs severe greed to get the flesh. Thus he contradicts Antonio, whose compassion is exactly the opposite of Shylock. Antonio is just like a ewe devoid of wickedness, so obviously, he is agreeing to his fate. He is sacrificing himself, “like a lamb to the slaughter"; Antonio is in complete submission and that is why he acts without any resistance against the situation. Thus, this figurative language perfectly applies here.
Arguing that the concept of “otherness” in its very ultimate meaning implies “mutual dependence” and therefore, intrinsically coincides with likeliness, Bennett and Royle conclude that “[f]ar from being a marginal concern of English Literature, in fact, racial difference is central” (p. 282). Indeed, racial difference is a significant theme in The Merchant of Venice, and as for the figurative speech in this instance, the cruelty of wolf is ascribed to Jews. Citing from Nietzsche that “the meaning of a text cannot be separated from its expression, its figures”, Bennett and Royle also argue that figures are not merely attached to literary language, but “fundamental to our world, to our lives” (p. 82). Juxtaposing to its very antithesis is a way of conceptualisation. One cannot understand warmth unless experiencing coldness. The innocence of ewe is more vivid and understandable in the cruelty of the wolf. Likewise, the character of Antonio needs Shylock to be distinct. Kindness would have no meaning if there was no mischief at all, and in relation to racial difference, Antonio’s gentleness is only comprehensible in a world where Shylock’s cruelty exists. This may happen beyond language as a mere image or figure, which then needs a tool such as a language to be communicated. Therefore, figures precede and surround language. 
Reference:

Bennett, Andrew, and Nicholas Royle. An Introduction to Literature, Criticism and Theory, edited by Andrew Bennett, and Nicholas Royle, Taylor and Francis, 2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uwsau/detail.action?docID=4429796.

Sunday, 2 July 2017

Re-writing a passage of Robinson Crusoe

The desire to voyage induced Robinson Crusoe to make a canoe. He was aware of almost all of the challenges that he might face. His extreme isolation was the first. Although he lacked resources, comparing himself with those people in the far remote areas making canoes without tools, made him more determined.  He knew about the tough job of making the canoe as well as the difficulty of launching it into the water. Despite the fact that he was well aware of all these problems, his concentrated intention to cross the sea made him inattentive about how to get a canoe from the land once it was made.
In his very first step for making the canoe, Crusoe found a big cedar tree. The tree was so big that he spent twenty days for cutting it down, fourteen days to chop off the head and branches, and another whole month to shape it like a canoe. He planned to make the whole canoe from that one single block of wood. For that purpose, he started to hewing that big trunk.  Although he knew the old technique of burning the wood to make a hole on it, he didn’t use that method. Crouse worked intensely with his mallet and chisel to dig the wood. Finally, after three months of extreme work, a great space was hollowed out in the trunk, enough to accommodate Crusoe with all his cargo. Following the canoe’s completion, Crusoe became very happy.
Crusoe’s happiness didn’t stay for long, because soon he had to tackle the distance between the canoe and water. Although it was only a hundred yards, it was uphill. He came out with a solution to dig the land in order to make an inclination on the surface so he could move the big canoe down towards the creek. It was a very tough job, but he started to do it. When he managed to do the diggings he found it still too high to move the canoe. That is why he measured the distance to water and this time decided to extend an artificial canal up to the canoe.  He started digging the land but he found it will take ten to twelve years for him to make the canal. In the end, in spite of his intention, he ended this attempt too and left the canoe.

Consequently, Crusoe found out that struggling with an exertion which is beyond our capacity is obvious foolishness. However, in the end, this unsuccessful experience provided him with contentment as he realised his life as a cumulative learning process. Thus, by applying the Holy Bible he achieved spirituality and further virtuous comprehension of his world which was completely different from what he used to think so far. This spiritual condition along with his extreme solitude led Crusoe to possess a unique point of view in which he learned he had nothing to do with the rest of the world.

Friday, 2 June 2017

"Love" the Figure of Speech


“Love is nutrient” is a rhetorical figure of speech. It asserts that love, which is a great feeling of affection, is the substance that provides nourishment for life. This figure is a metaphor, for love is not literally a substance. This metaphor means that love makes life grow, and emphasises its importance in the process of breeding.
This metaphor confirms Bennett and Royle’s assertion about our habituation to figurative language in a variety of ways. Firstly, love in its biological aspect is the very fundamental foundation of producing life. If love did not exist, certainly sexual intimacy could not happen either. In the absence of love as the main influential factor of procreation, the continuation of life would be in danger. Additionally, love supports life because it prevents wickedness and opposes evil. Likewise, love is not intelligible without life, and both are complementary to one another. So, the concept of love, to some extent fundamentally involves with life as always emerges together. This state of “togetherness” affects language and makes the figure of speech inevitable.
Because of the vast ground of resemblance between ideas and objects, metaphor and simile are widely used. Consequently, our thinking and speaking happen within a figurative language.