>I'm pretty sure Robinson Crusoe was not an ultra-individualist story.
Even though Crusoe was able to provide himself food, clothing and
shelter he was desperate for company, until he took Friday as a
servant. (And even Crusoe's existence on the level of food,
clothing and shelter was miserable until he salvaged a great deal from
the shipwreck he survived. Minus the salvage of the work of others, he
could have provided for himself well even on that level. And even with
the salvage,it took him a long time to put together a herd of goats
and vineyard and such to make himself truly comfortable on a very
crude level.) Of course this a modern reading, but I think it is part
of what Defoe intended.
>I also think all the stuff I read past at 14 about how much better off
men of the "middle sort" are than either the rich or the poor, and his
opposition to adventuring, and the need to be satisfied with your
place in life, and grateful to God were just as central to his intent.
>Crusoe before the shipwreck is clearly intended to be morally lost.
Even if the sale as a slave of the boy who has been his loyal
companion is not seen as reprehensible (and I don't get the feeling
the reader is completely intended to accept Crusoe's claim that the
boy told him to go ahead that it was fine with him) Crusoe's self
description seems to be clear that in retrospect he considers his self
of that time to be a fool. A fool in the sense of taking foolish risks
and not looking out for his long term interests. But those long term
interests clearly include spiritual interests. Crusoe, pre-wreck, is
not paying sufficient attention to God.
>And his survival alone on the island is indeed intended to be a
triumph of the human spirit. But that triumph is NOT that he survives
alone. He has extraordinary pieces of luck, surviving the wreck when
nobody else does, ending up in exactly the place where he could
survive when (as it turns out) he could have ended up on another
island or another place on his island that would have doomed him. He
also gets access to salvage, survives illness. And while he does his
best, his narrative constantly emphasizes how luck, or as he (and I
think Defoe) see it help from God are what helps him survive.
>I think the the triumph of spirit I read in Crusoe (and it really
looks to me like the triumph Defoe intended) is a sinner achieving
true sincere repentance, and achieving true gratitude toward God. (My
atheism does not prevent me accepting this in the context of the
story.) And the part of the repentance is also accepting his need for
society, his place within society, his loyalty toward society. His
playing a key role in helping the loyal English crew overcome the
mutineers is not just a demonstration of the awesomeness of Crusoe,
but of his finally taking risks for something bigger than himself. So
Crusoe is no Rand precursor!
I want to add that in one sense Defoe was an individualist, in that he saw salvation as intensely individual. There was an argument in the Christianity of his day over salvation through faith and salvation through works. And I think that Defoe saw evil and improper acts as distractions that made it impossible to pay attention to God. Only when you were acting properly both virtuously and also pragmatically in your self-interest in ways that did not involve committing evil and stepping out of place could you pay attention to God well enough to achieve faith. Unlike certain types of modern Christian, Defoe did not think you attained salvation by wrestling with the devil an winning. To Defoe, you obtained salvation by wrestling with God and losing.