Ďaľšie referáty z kategórie
Robinson Crusoe biography
|Jazyk:||Počet slov:||1 358|
|Referát vhodný pre:||Stredná odborná škola||Počet A4:||4.2|
|Priemerná známka:||2.97||Rýchle čítanie:||7m 0s|
|Pomalé čítanie:||10m 30s|
Critics say about Defoe, that he was gifted in telling lies, what was however strange indeed, Defoe’s main profession was journalist, what meant: reality, facts and happening (events). Defoe wanted to shock his readers. Therefore is Robinson Crusoe full of catastrophes, cannibals, pirates, storms and earthquakes. The fact is that Robinson Crusoe was not a book written for children, it only became later by regulation, time mistakes intentional, or only the result of writer’s carelessness. It seems to me that Defoe even didn’t read after himself, what he wrote. His contemporaries had an opinion that he was a liar; plenty of articles written by him were invented, although he was the one who claimed in name of Robinson Crusoe that lies and half-truths are dangerous. Here we can see a contradiction between things he wrote and his real behavior. He was working more and more often with literary fiction. He got so skillful in it that an uninformed reader wouldn’t notice that what he is just reading is pure invention. That’s exactly the point where Defoe overlaps the borders of journalism and gets into another level, level of a new literary genre – novel, realistic novel. He is taken as its father. A novel is invention, fiction. This is the reason why we can’t compare Daniel Defoe with Robinson Crusoe. It is very easy to show that Robinson Crusoe is an invention, let’s consider Defoe’s description of tropical nature and animals- it is only superficial, inexact and is similar to the description of European countries: „I discovered there brook with fresh, very good spring water. There was green grass growing on both banks of the river“, or the words „there were immensely big animals of many species“- we can see even from these two fragment that Defoe apparently had no idea how a tropical nature looked like. Critics consider him to be one of the most disorderly English writers. For example: after Robison Crusoe saved himself from the shipwreck, he decided to investigate the wreck. He put off his clothes and jumped into the water. On the ship he found stock of food, among them also crackers and filled all of his pockets with it. The question is what pockets, when he put off his clothes?! Or in another part we could read Robinson salted meat, but several pages on he couldn’t bake bread because he lacked salt. We can find plenty of misunderstandings like these. We say misunderstandings or untruth. But what do we consider as an error in fiction? For example no one criticized that Robinson Crusoe met on the coast of West Africa a tiger, though a zoologist would catch at least at his head.
Zdroje: J.Vítek: Life and Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, B.Hlinka: Robinson Crusoe myth and reality, R.S.Belousov: Books are keeping it in secret