Why Wasn't Crusoe Found Sooner?

While reading Robinson Crusoe a thought had occurred to me. Robinson became marooned when the trade ship that he had been riding in crashed. He then spent some very long time (I say this cause he lost track when he got sick) on that deserted island until he is accidentally discovered by another merchant ship. This made me ask why it took so long for him to be discovered. Didn’t Britain have a better system to look after their ships?

During the 17^th and most of the 18^th British commerce centered on the colonization for other states and countries. America is probably the biggest example of how the British conducted their colonization and how cruel it really was. Colonization was Britain’s biggest source of income since the British colonies provided new raw materials and new land to help strengthen the countries. This being the case one would think that the British would be highly interested in the only means of reaching the colonies… the ships. However I was quite surprised to find out that the British kept very loose tracks of the ships. However, looking at it more closely this fact might have been quite easily explained. Most people of the time, especially in Britain found these colonies to be a great way to make quick money. This fact, plus the fact that the new world had started to become more “civil” lead to a dramatic increase in people like Robinson Crusoe who decided that their fortunes lay within the colonies. Of course this also lead to an increase in the number of trade and merchant ship; almost to the point that all the ships could not be kept track of accurately. To put is simply there were just too many ships, going to too many different locations that it seems more logical that the British couldn’t keep accurate records; not that they didn’t.

See you around
Will

The Portrayals of Rochester from Wide Sargasso Sea and Jayne Eyre

Quite frankly I did not like Wide Sargasso Sea this does not mean that I didn’t think that it was a good book. Quite the contrary, I thought that it was extremely well written; I just hate being wrong. And Wide Sargasso Sea seems to have been written for the sole purpose of making me, and people like me, admit that we were wrong.

When we read Jane Eyre I saw Rochester as a man who had good intentions however he had made some mistakes by going off of the lies and deceit of his father and older brother. However after reading Wide Sargasso Sea I realized just how wrong my assumptions on Rochester’s character were. In Wide Sargasso Sea Rochester is portrayed as an overly pessimistic, weak willed individual who refused to see any views other than his own. Not to mention the scene with Amelie… yhea that’s not helping Rochester’s, “I’m the victim” story.

It wasn’t hard for Wide Sargasso Sea to get its point across since it seems like this book was written for the sole purpose of discrediting every single part of the story of Rochester’s past that is presented in Jane Eyre. And it does this very well. Wide Sargasso Sea uses subtle hints, multiple viewpoints, including Rochester himself, and even surrounding environments (look at how Rochester views Jamaica and how Antoinette viewed England) to hammer in it’s portrayal of Rochester into every one of its readers. This means that I have to admit that I am wrong (and I REALLY hate admitting this) and I owe Bertha an apology for believing the story of the man who was being accused for attempted adultery. Though in my defense he did do something heroic in the end.

Peace out

Will Pugh