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

 

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

 Introduction

           Literature has always reflected the spirit of its age. Every story that survives across centuries often carries not only its author’s imagination but also the ideologies, values, and conflicts of its time. Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe (1719) and J. M. Coetzee’s Foe (1986) are two such texts that speak to each other across history. Defoe’s novel, written during the height of European colonial expansion, celebrates the ideals of adventure, individualism, and empire. Coetzee’s Foe, written centuries later, deconstructs these same ideals to expose the silences, exclusions, and moral contradictions hidden within colonial narratives.

       By rewriting Robinson Crusoe, Coetzee engages in a dialogue between tradition and transformation. His novel not only retells the story but also questions the very foundations of storytelling — who speaks, who is silenced, and who controls the narrative. This blog will explore both works comparatively, focusing on the themes of tradition, postcolonial critique, language, voicelessness, metafiction, and reconstruction.

 1. Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe: The Birth of the Colonial Hero

        When Robinson Crusoe was published in 1719, it became one of the earliest and most influential novels in English literature. Defoe’s story of a shipwrecked man surviving on a deserted island seemed at first like an adventure tale, but it also represented the spirit of European colonialism and Protestant individualism. Crusoe’s determination to conquer nature, establish order, and “civilize” Friday reflects the values of the emerging capitalist and imperial world.

        Crusoe is portrayed as a rational, self-reliant man  a symbol of imperial individualism. His island becomes a microcosm of the British Empire, where he reproduces European society in miniature. The act of naming, owning, and organizing the island mirrors colonial domination. Friday, the enslaved native, becomes a servant  a voiceless figure who represents the colonized subject.

      In short, Robinson Crusoe celebrates human mastery, Christian morality, and colonial enterprise. Defoe’s narrative thus aligns with the imperial ideology that justified European expansion and the subjugation of non-European peoples.

 2. J. M. Coetzee’s Foe: Rewriting the Colonial Narrative

    More than two and a half centuries later, J. M. Coetzee, a South African novelist writing during the apartheid era, returned to Defoe’s tale in his novel Foe. Coetzee’s work is not merely a retelling; it is a critical rewriting. It examines how stories like Robinson Crusoe helped shape Western ideas of civilization, identity, and otherness.

     In Foe, Coetzee introduces Susan Barton, a woman who is shipwrecked and lands on Crusoe’s island, where she meets Crusoe and Friday. Unlike Defoe’s confident and commanding Crusoe, Coetzee’s version is older, weaker, and uncertain. Friday, meanwhile, remains silent — his tongue has been cut out. This silence becomes the central metaphor of the novel.

      Through this narrative shift, Coetzee challenges the authority of colonial storytelling. He exposes how the voices of women, the colonized, and the marginalized were silenced in traditional literature. The title Foe itself refers to Daniel Defoe  suggesting both “enemy” and “author”  as Coetzee confronts the literary tradition that Defoe represents.

 3. Tradition and Transformation

     Coetzee’s Foe engages deeply with the idea of tradition. Tradition, as your notes rightly mention, is not fixed  it is “something written continually reshaped.” Coetzee does not simply inherit the literary tradition of Robinson Crusoe; he reforms and re-creates it to question its ideological foundations.

     In Foe, the English literary tradition  especially its Eurocentric and patriarchal elements  is exposed as limited. By rewriting a canonical British novel from the perspective of a woman and a silenced Black man, Coetzee reshapes literary tradition to include voices that were historically excluded.

      Thus, tradition in Coetzee’s work becomes a space of resistance, not obedience. He honors the past by challenging it, demonstrating that the continuity of literature depends on its ability to question itself.

4. Postcolonial Perspective: Reclaiming the Silenced Voices

       Coetzee’s Foe is a profoundly postcolonial text. It emerges from a world that has inherited both the language and the legacy of empire. As a South African writer, Coetzee uses English  the language of the colonizer  to critique the colonial order itself. His work belongs to what Homi Bhabha calls the “postcolonial condition,” where the colonized subject both uses and subverts the master’s language.

     In Foe, the voicelessness of Friday represents the historical silence of colonized peoples. His missing tongue becomes a haunting symbol of what colonialism destroys  not just bodies, but languages, cultures, and identities. Susan Barton’s attempts to make Friday speak reveal the failure of English and European discourse to truly represent the colonial other.

      As your notes observe, “Friday’s voicelessness suggests the limits of English and European discourse in capturing other realities.” Coetzee thus questions whether Western storytelling can ever give voice to the subaltern.

5. Language, Silence, and Power

    In both novels, language is central to the relationship between master and servant. In Defoe’s version, Crusoe teaches Friday English, turning language into a tool of domination. Friday’s learning of English signifies his assimilation into Crusoe’s authority.

    Coetzee reverses this dynamic. In Foe, Friday’s silence is a form of resistance. It is not merely a lack of speech but a refusal to be defined by the colonizer’s language. His silence speaks of unspeakable histories  the pain, violence, and loss that words cannot express.

      Through Friday, Coetzee exposes the violence of representation. To make someone “speak” within the language of the colonizer often means to erase their original identity. Silence, therefore, becomes an ethical stance  a reminder of what cannot be translated or told.

6. Gender and Authorship: Susan Barton’s Perspective

      By introducing Susan Barton as a narrator, Coetzee adds a feminist layer to his critique. In Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe, women are entirely absent. In Foe, a woman becomes the storyteller — yet even she struggles to be heard. When Susan returns from the island, she tries to narrate her story to the writer Daniel Foe, but he constantly rewrites and reshapes it to fit his own vision.

       This tension between Susan and Foe mirrors the larger conflict between male authority and female experience. Just as the colonized are silenced by the colonizer, women are silenced by patriarchal structures. Coetzee thereby links gender oppression with colonial oppression, suggesting that both depend on controlling the right to speak and write.

7. Colonial Ideology and Its Deconstruction

     Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe embodies the ideology of colonialism  faith in progress, civilization, and divine mission. Crusoe’s island becomes a colonial laboratory, where he transforms wilderness into property. His Christianity and sense of moral superiority justify his rule over Friday.

   Coetzee deconstructs this ideology in Foe. Crusoe’s authority is weakened, his faith uncertain, and his island no longer a paradise of mastery. Instead of triumph and discovery, there is ambiguity and loss. Coetzee questions the very foundations of colonial morality  showing how it depended on silencing others in the name of civilization.

     As your notes highlight, the novel engages with themes like:

• Imperial individualism

• Persuasion and property

• Christian morality and colonial ideology

• Friday as a subaltern figure

• The colonial archive

          Through these, Coetzee dismantles the heroic image of Crusoe and reveals the hidden violence of his actions.

8. Metafiction and the Question of Authorship

           One of Coetzee’s most powerful techniques in Foe is metafiction  fiction that reflects on the act of storytelling itself. The novel constantly blurs the line between reality and fiction, questioning who has the authority to create meaning.

       In Foe, the writer Daniel Foe becomes a character who tries to shape Susan Barton’s story. This represents the broader issue of how history is written  by whom, and for what purpose. Coetzee uses metafiction to reveal that all stories, even historical or colonial ones, are constructed narratives that can be questioned and rewritten.

       Metafiction in Foe thus becomes a postcolonial strategy  a way to reclaim narrative power from the colonial author. By drawing attention to the process of writing, Coetzee invites readers to see how literature can both oppress and liberate.

 9. Reconstruction and Revisioning the Past

       Coetzee’s rewriting of Robinson Crusoe is an act of literary reconstruction. Instead of accepting the colonial myth, he reconstructs it from within, filling its silences and gaps. This process mirrors the broader postcolonial project of decolonizing history and imagination.

      Through Foe, Coetzee shows that the past cannot be erased but must be retold differently. He reconstructs tradition not by destroying it, but by exposing its limitations and reimagining its meanings. This is what gives Foe its universal power  it is both a critique and a continuation of Robinson Crusoe.

10. Comparative Overview: Defoe vs. Coetzee

      Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe and J. M. Coetzee’s Foe represent two different eras and perspectives. Defoe’s novel, written in the 18th century during the age of colonialism, reflects the spirit of exploration, survival, and faith. Its narrator, Robinson Crusoe, is a male colonial master who believes in control, civilization, and Christian values. In contrast, Coetzee’s Foe, written in the 20th century, belongs to the postcolonial period and questions the same colonial ideologies. The story is told by Susan Barton, a woman whose voice was silenced in Defoe’s version, symbolizing the struggle of marginalized voices to be heard.

    In Robinson Crusoe, language and knowledge are tools of control Crusoe teaches Friday to speak English, marking his dominance. In Foe, however, language becomes a tool of exclusion, as Friday’s silence represents the absence of the subaltern’s voice in colonial history. While Defoe’s tone is optimistic and moralistic, showing faith in God and human effort, Coetzee’s tone is critical and reflective, filled with questions about truth, authorship, and power. Defoe’s work promotes colonial expansion and Christian faith, whereas Coetzee’s novel resists those ideas and explores moral and historical doubt. Structurally, Robinson Crusoe follows a realist narrative, while Foe uses a metafictional style to reconstruct and question Defoe’s story from new angles.

 11. Coetzee’s Global Perspective

      Though deeply rooted in South Africa, Coetzee’s writing carries a global consciousness. As your notes mention, he is a multilingual and multicultural author, whose works have been translated into many languages. His engagement with European traditions, along with his awareness of Eastern and African realities, gives his writing a unique worldly quality.

     Coetzee balances influence and originality  drawing from classical and colonial texts, yet reshaping them through his own moral and philosophical vision. His work represents the possibility of global literature that acknowledges its roots in colonial history while moving beyond it.

 12. The Ethical Dimension of Foe

    Ultimately, Coetzee’s Foe is not only about colonialism or authorship  it is about ethics. The novel asks: What does it mean to speak for others? Can we ever represent another’s pain truthfully? And if not, how do we write responsibly in a world shaped by inequality and silence?

     By refusing to make Friday speak, Coetzee resists the temptation to impose meaning where none can be ethically given. His silence becomes a moral statement  an acknowledgment of limits, humility, and the need to listen rather than dominate.

 Conclusion

      Through Foe, Coetzee transforms Robinson Crusoe from a story of mastery into a meditation on power, language, and responsibility. Where Defoe celebrated human triumph, Coetzee mourns human silence. Where Defoe built an island of empire, Coetzee builds an island of questions.

This comparative and critical analysis reveals that literature is not static; it evolves as writers like Coetzee challenge its boundaries. Foe stands as both a tribute to and a transformation of Robinson Crusoe  reminding readers that the most powerful stories are those that dare to rewrite the past.

Thank you for reading ....

Reference : 

Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin. The Empire Writes Back: Theory and Practice in Post-Colonial Literatures. Routledge, 1989.

Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture. Routledge, 1994.

Coetzee, J. M. Foe. Penguin Books, 1986.

Defoe, Daniel. Robinson Crusoe. W. Taylor, 1719.

Said, Edward W. Culture and Imperialism. Vintage Books, 1993.