Robinson Crusoe as a Reliable Narrator

Question:

Do you think Robinson Crusoe is a reliable narrator? Can we trust his version of the story completely? Explain why or why not.

Answer:

It is highly debatable whether Robinson Crusoe is a reliable narrator whose version of the story can be completely trusted. The narrative is deliberately presented as fact, but Crusoe's own biases, self-deception, and changing perspectives suggest that while his account of events may be plausible, it is not necessarily objective or entirely trustworthy.

Here is an explanation of why we should question his reliability:

Reasons to Trust the Narrator

• Plausible Detail and "Unliterary" Style: The story is filled with an immense amount of persuasive detail. Crusoe's first-person narrative is described as "defiantly unliterary," which makes it feel more believable as the genuine account of an ordinary man's ordeal. He meticulously documents his struggles, such as the 42 days it took him to make a single shelf, lending an air of authenticity to his tale.
• Intention of Factual Reporting: Daniel Defoe, the author, explicitly presented the novel as a "just history of fact" with "no appearance of fiction in it". He wore the "mask of editor" to frame the story as a true account, a popular technique at the time to make a work seem more authentic and important. This authorial intent was so successful that many original readers in 1719 believed the story was true.

Reasons to Question the Narrator's Reliability

Despite these points, several aspects of Crusoe's narration reveal him to be unreliable, shaping the story to fit his own moral and psychological needs.

• Self-Serving Rationalisations: Crusoe often justifies his morally questionable actions. A clear example is his treatment of Xury, the boy who helps him escape slavery. Crusoe sells Xury into slavery himself, yet he only expresses regret later when he is a planter in Brazil and realises he "could use a slave to help him in his work". This reframing of regret from a moral failing to a practical inconvenience suggests a narrator who reinterprets his past to lessen his own culpability.
• Conflicting Self-Perception: Crusoe frequently presents himself as an average, incompetent man, stating, "I had never handled a tool in my life". Yet, through his own account, he becomes a "master of every mechanic art". He also calls himself a "congenital bumbler" who becomes competent only through circumstance. While this can be seen as a journey of growth, it also highlights a potential contradiction: he downplays his innate abilities to emphasise the transformative power of his ordeal and Divine Providence, fitting the structure of a morality tale.
• Retrospective Moralising and Religious Framing: Much of the story is told with the benefit of hindsight, coloured by Crusoe's later religious conversion. He frequently interprets events not as they happened, but as he later understood them through a religious lens. For instance, he initially reacts to the miraculous growth of barley with awe, believing it to be a direct sign from God, but his "religious thankfulness" abates when he remembers he shook out a bag of chicken feed there. Still, he later reinterprets this as a work of Providence anyway. This shows a narrator actively shaping his story to "justify and honour the wisdom of Providence," as the preface suggests, rather than simply reporting events as they occurred.
• His Account of His Own Character: Crusoe describes himself at the beginning as "disobedient and hubristic". He consistently frames his misfortunes as divine punishment for this original sin of leaving home against his father's wishes. While he is self-critical, this criticism always serves the larger narrative of sin, punishment, repentance, and deliverance. His story is less a neutral recounting of events and more a "memento" or a "vivid warning" to others, which means the events are likely selected and framed to serve this moral purpose.
• The Unreliable Nature of First-Person Narration: As the sole narrator of his 28-year ordeal, there is no one to corroborate his story. Everything we know is filtered through his perspective. His descriptions of Friday as a "faithful, loving, sincere servant... without passions, sullenness, or designs" and his immediate submission are entirely Crusoe's interpretation. Given Crusoe's self-appointed role as "king" and "Generalissimo," his portrayal of Friday's devotion conveniently reinforces his own status as a benevolent ruler and coloniser, an image that serves the imperialist undertones of the novel.

In conclusion, while Robinson Crusoe's narrative is designed to appear factual and reliable, we cannot trust his version of the story completely. He is an inherently subjective narrator whose account is shaped by self-interest, hindsight, and a desire to present his life as a powerful moral allegory of divine punishment and redemption. His story is more "plausible" than it is objectively true.