DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SWIFT AND DEFOE
In first place the difference between Daniel Defoe and Jonathan Swift has a political
basis. Defoe is a whig, consequently has liberal ideas and dissenter mind, while
Swift is Anglican and deployed in the tories’ faction.
Both see the theme of the journey in a positive way because it represents new
experiences but the real gap begins when the protagonists of their novels, Robinson
and Gulliver start to face their own adventures.
The best way to understand the differences between these two authors lived within
the XVIIth century and XVIIIth century is describing their characters because they
are Defoe and Swift’s reflection and way of thinking.
Robinson Crusoe is the exaltation of English XVIIIth century’s society. This character
has a positive point of view and exploits several situations to his advantage
becoming the hero of the story and the perfect idea of English colonizer and
self-made man. Crusoe reinvents himself in the island’s reality and becomes a better
man. So Defoe exalts the use of reason and individualism, as well.
Swift with his Gulliver is totally the opposite because “Gulliver’s travels” is nothing
but a critique of the society. The concept of utopia makes us think that the novel is
just a fantasy story but every Gulliver adventure represents a negative side of
society and the protagonist neither conquers anything nor colonizes while Robinson
has success in both of these things.
Gulliver is under the sway of other peoples who are nothing but a metaphor of
mankind, evil and false.
Swift condemns individualism and satirizes about English colonizers. Gulliver meets
the Lilliputians, menb of six inches who seem good but that in reality have a lot of
hate inside their hearts. This is how Swift sees us: little, in the sense that we think
we’re powerful but actually insignificant and evil.
Gulliver never shows his feelings or improves his way of being while Robinson
spends time thinking about his mistakes. The last land Gulliver visits is the
Houyhnhnm one, the horses’ society. This is a great message because they are
paradoxically more human than humans themselves. When Gulliver goes back home
doesn’t feel comfortable in his society, corrupted and bad.
Robinson Crusoe has a good ending, instead.
Friday, the colonized representation (from “Robinson Crusoe”), from Swift’s point of
view would have subdued the “Gulliver’s travels” protagonist, because Gulliver is not
the hero: good and wise but is just like all his society’s men, insignificant. Robinson,
instead, is seen as the one who has all the power to colonize and prevail.
