Comparative and Critical Analysis of Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe and J. M. Coetzee’s Foe

This blog has been prepared as part of the Thinking Activity Task assigned by Megha Trivedi Ma’am. The aim is to engage critically with literature, exploring not only narratives and characters but also the deeper cultural, moral, and ethical questions they raise. 

Introduction :

In this analysis, I will compare Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe (1719) and J. M. Coetzee’s Foe (1986), highlighting major points of similarity and difference, while examining the historical, narrative, and ideological contexts of both works. The discussion focuses on survival, storytelling, colonialism, voice, and moral responsibility, offering a comprehensive understanding of how literature reflects and interrogates human experience across time.

1. Historical Context and Literary Background

Daniel Defoe wrote Robinson Crusoe in the early 18th century, a time marked by European exploration, mercantilism, and colonial expansion. The novel reflects Enlightenment ideals of reason, self-reliance, and Protestant ethics. Crusoe’s survival is depicted as both physical and spiritual, emphasizing labor, discipline, and divine providence. The narrative also reflects the colonial mindset, portraying European dominion over nature and the “other” as a civilizing mission.

J. M. Coetzee, writing in apartheid-era South Africa in the 1980s, revisits Crusoe’s story through a postcolonial and metafictional lens. Foe critiques colonial ideology and interrogates the ethics of storytelling. It examines who gets to narrate history and whose voices are silenced, particularly the marginalized and oppressed. Coetzee’s work reflects postcolonial theory, emphasizing the ethical, political, and narrative responsibilities of the author and the reader.

Critical Insight: While Defoe celebrates colonial expansion and individual moral development, Coetzee questions the authority of such narratives and highlights the ethical dilemmas of representation and authorship.

2. Narrative Perspective and Voice

A major point of difference between the two novels is narrative perspective:

• Crusoe in Defoe: First-person narration gives Crusoe authority and reliability. He recounts his thoughts, reflections, and daily activities, presenting his survival and moral development as exemplary. His voice dominates the narrative, reflecting the Enlightenment belief in rational, self-disciplined individualism.

• Barton in Coetzee: Susan Barton narrates her own account in Foe, but her story is mediated through the author figure, Foe, and Crusoe’s silences dominate. This metafictional perspective foregrounds questions about authorship and authority: who controls the narrative, and whose experiences are represented? Friday’s voice, central yet absent, underscores the ethical implications of silencing marginalized characters.

Critical Insight: Defoe emphasizes narrative authority and reliability; Coetzee destabilizes it, highlighting the politics of storytelling and the ethical responsibility to represent marginalized voices.

3. Characterization and Moral Themes

Robinson Crusoe embodies Enlightenment ideals: rationality, industriousness, and morality. Crusoe repents for youthful mistakes, relies on divine providence, and exercises careful planning to survive. His relationship with Friday reflects colonial hierarchies: Crusoe instructs, converts, and dominates him, consolidating European moral and cultural authority.

Foe deconstructs these assumptions. Crusoe is no longer the infallible hero; his moral and narrative authority is questioned. Barton represents ethical responsibility, insisting on truth and recognition of marginalized voices. Friday’s silence becomes a moral and ethical focus, emphasizing the consequences of historical erasure.

Critical Insight: Defoe prioritizes individual morality and divine guidance, while Coetzee emphasizes ethical responsibility, justice, and the importance of representing silenced voices.

4. Treatment of Colonialism and Power

In Robinson Crusoe, the island is a site of European mastery. Crusoe’s domination of nature and Friday reflects colonial ideology, celebrating European civilization, rationality, and moral superiority. Friday’s voicelessness mirrors historical patterns of subordination and marginalization.

In Foe, the island becomes a site of contestation. Friday’s silence and Barton’s struggle to tell her story challenge colonial assumptions. Coetzee critiques Crusoe’s authority, emphasizing ethical responsibility in narration and highlighting the moral consequences of silencing the oppressed.

Critical Insight: Defoe naturalizes colonial hierarchies, whereas Coetzee interrogates and destabilizes them, providing a postcolonial critique of power and representation.

5. Narrative Reliability and Metafiction

Defoe’s realism and meticulous attention to detail create a trustworthy narrative. Crusoe’s account of survival, moral reflection, and labor cultivates the illusion of autobiography, reinforcing his moral and practical authority.

Coetzee employs metafiction: Barton’s account is mediated and questioned by Foe, and Friday’s silence emphasizes the limits of narrative authority. The novel interrogates the construction of stories and the biases inherent in authorship, inviting readers to consider the ethical implications of representation.

Critical Insight: Defoe models moral and practical lessons through reliable narration, while Coetzee highlights the ethical responsibility of writers and the constructed nature of narrative.

6. The Role of Silence and Voice

Friday’s voice in Robinson Crusoe is minimal and mediated, reflecting Eurocentric assumptions of the colonial era. Crusoe speaks for him, consolidating authority and control.

In Foe, Friday’s deliberate silence is central to the narrative’s moral inquiry. Barton struggles to give him a voice, while Foe’s refusal highlights the ethical challenges of representing the marginalized. Coetzee uses silence to critique narrative domination and to emphasize the moral responsibility of writers to acknowledge absence and presence simultaneously.

Critical Insight: Defoe normalizes marginality; Coetzee problematizes it, offering a postcolonial perspective on representation and voice.

7. Themes of Survival, Identity, and Moral Responsibility

Survival is a key theme in both novels but is treated differently:

• Crusoe: Survival is both physical and spiritual. Success is tied to labor, discipline, and divine providence. Crusoe develops a coherent identity as master of the island, reflecting individualism and colonial authority.

• Foe: Survival is relational, ethical, and psychological. Barton survives physically but must assert narrative authority. Moral survival involves recognizing and representing marginalized experiences. Coetzee expands the concept of survival to include ethical responsibility and narrative integrity.

Critical Insight: Defoe celebrates self-reliance and rationality; Coetzee emphasizes ethical engagement, moral responsibility, and the limits of narrative authority.

8. Literary and Ideological Significance

Robinson Crusoe is foundational for the development of the novel, influencing narrative structure, realism, and interiority. Ideologically, it reflects Enlightenment values, colonial expansion, and moral rectitude.

Foe, on the other hand, reflects postmodern and postcolonial literary sensibilities. It critiques canonical texts, interrogates narrative authority, and foregrounds the ethical dilemmas of representation. By revisiting Crusoe, Coetzee challenges Eurocentric narratives, colonial hierarchies, and the silencing of the subaltern.

Critical Insight: The contrast highlights shifts in literary priorities: from celebrating conquest, morality, and rationality to questioning authority, representation, and ethical responsibility.

9. Textual References and Symbolism

In Robinson Crusoe, Crusoe’s meticulous record-keeping, his cultivation of the island, and his conversion of Friday symbolize human mastery, providence, and moral development. The island itself is a microcosm of European values and hierarchical structures.

In Foe, Coetzee uses silence, gaps, and narrative mediation as symbols of ethical and representational responsibility. Barton’s repeated attempts to make Friday’s story heard, coupled with Foe’s interventions, dramatize the moral stakes of storytelling. The island becomes a site of contested authority and ethical questioning rather than a stage for European triumph.

10. Feminist Rewriting and the Role of Susan Barton

Coetzee’s Foe introduces Susan Barton, a female narrator who becomes central to the retelling of Crusoe’s story. Through her, Coetzee questions the absence of women’s voices in canonical literature. In Robinson Crusoe, women are nearly invisible — Crusoe’s adventures take place in a male-dominated colonial world. In contrast, Susan Barton’s struggle to narrate her experience represents the female quest for authorship and agency in a patriarchal literary tradition.

Barton’s conflict with Daniel Foe (Defoe) symbolizes the silencing of women’s experiences by male authors who control the act of storytelling. Her attempts to have her version written expose how history and fiction are filtered through gendered power structures. Coetzee thereby transforms a classic narrative of adventure and empire into a feminist meditation on voice, authorship, and erasure.

Example: When Barton says she wants to be “the author of her own story,” she not only speaks for herself but for countless women excluded from literary history. Coetzee thus reclaims the marginal spaces of history and literature for women.

11. The Motif of Silence and the Limits of Language

Another crucial comparative point lies in the theme of silence—especially embodied in the character of Friday. In Robinson Crusoe, Friday’s silence signifies submission and difference; he speaks only as much as Crusoe allows him to. His limited voice reinforces colonial hierarchies where the European subject dominates the non-European “Other.”

However, in Foe, Friday’s silence becomes the most powerful symbol of resistance. His inability (or refusal) to speak is not merely a lack of language but a commentary on the violence of representation. Coetzee transforms silence into a form of speech — a reminder of the countless voices erased by colonial and patriarchal narratives.

Where Defoe’s Crusoe sees Friday’s silence as a void to be filled by “civilization,” Coetzee’s narrative teaches readers to listen to silence as meaning itself. The closing scene, where the narrator descends into Friday’s mouth and hears the sound of the sea, blurs the boundary between voice and silence, history and oblivion — suggesting that true meaning may lie beyond language.

Critical insight: Through Friday’s silence, Coetzee exposes the limits of Defoe’s Enlightenment faith in language and reason, inviting readers to confront the ethical responsibility of representation itself.

Conclusion :

This comparative analysis demonstrates how literature evolves in response to historical, cultural, and ethical concerns. Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe celebrates survival, moral providence, and colonial mastery, reflecting 18th-century European values. J. M. Coetzee’s Foe revisits and deconstructs this narrative, interrogating the ethics of storytelling, narrative authority, and the representation of marginalized voices.

By examining narrative perspective, character, morality, colonialism, and voice, it becomes evident that the dialogue between these two texts illuminates the shifting concerns of literature. Defoe constructs the hero and legitimizes colonial authority, while Coetzee destabilizes the narrative, exposing silences and ethical dilemmas. Together, these works remind us that literature is a dynamic conversation across time, encouraging readers to critically engage with the power structures, moral responsibilities, and ethical implications embedded in stories.

References :

      Coetzee, J M. Foe. London: Penguin Books, 1988.

    Defoe, Daniel. Robinson Crusoe: The Complete Adventures (Vol.1 - Vol.2). New York: 

CreateSpace, 2013. 

   Devaram, S. A., & Dr.S.Gunasekaran. (2024, February 13). Narrative Struggles: Unraveling the quest for identity in J.M. Coetzee’s “Foe.” Retrieved October 19, 2025, from https://migrationletters.com/index.php/ml/article/view/7725

       

    Han, Wenju. (2017). Construction and Deconstruction of Imagined Community—A Comparative Study of Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe and J. M. Coetzee’s Foe in Light of Nationalism. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. 8. 1141. 10.17507/jltr.0806.15.

 

        Mehigan, Tim. A Companion to the Works of J. M. Coetzee (Studies in English and American Literature and Culture). Boston: Camden House, 2014. p. 95. 

    Siddiqui, Dr. Z. (2014). CRUSOE IN POST-COLONIAL TIMES: AN ANALYSIS OF FOE BY COETZEE. IJELLH, 2(2), 2321–7065.