The Novel's Power

In reading Robinson Crusoe and the different appendices of the book, one thing that sticks out is between the many documents and the book in how they present similar arguments. One of the easiest places to see this is in the different views on cannibalism the different documents present their argument in a sort of matter of fact way, while in Robinson Crusoe Defoe presents essentially the same points through the development of Crusoe's character. In the many different excerpts detailing cannibalism from Montaigne, Rochefort, and Dampier we get the overwhelming sense that cannibalism is something that belongs only to barbarians, that it makes men into monsters. Then we have Defoe telling us that, true it is wrong, but how is it so different from the practices of so-called civilized people? Do we not do things that are wrong and monstrous in the heat of the moment, even more so when war is involved? However, in Robinson Crusoe, we get something much more touching. We are forced to live through Robinson's fear as he continues to think about the footprint he found in the sand, signaling that he is not the only inhabitant on the island. We are with Crusoe as he realizes his luck in not being placed on the other side of the island where the cannibals are but rather on the side where they never come, leavig him in relative safety. We see Crusoe call the island's inhabitants savages, and then take his thought back as he realizes the inhabitants of this isaldn are not that much different from the European Christians who in the heat of battle kill other men. Crusoe puts it simply:

"...these people were not murtherers, in the sense that I had once condemned them in my thoughts, anymore than those Christians were murtherers, who often put to death the prisoners taken in battle, or more frequently, upon many occasions, put whole troops of men to the sword, without giving quarter, though they threw down their arms and surrendered." (Defoe 191)

In Robinson Crusoe, we get a much more interesting portrayal of the different ideas found in the separate passages on cannibalism. For me this goes back to teh change in mediation the Enligthenment deals with. Essentially, it comes down to the point Johnson made in the Rambler, in that the novel allows readers to become more emotionally attached while reading. Whereas the points in the readings on cannibalism do paint their own grotesque (and somewhat sympathetic on Defoe's part) we are not as involved with those as we are with Crusoe at this point in his journey, and so they simply do not have the same effect.

Character Development

The role of fiction in society has always been an interesting one. Fiction, whether it be the novel, television, movies, or even just stories told amongst friends, has always been able to catch our attention. However, fiction is more than just something that entertains us. Fiction has also been an outlet to express the values of the author and beyond that of society as a whole. And as Samuel Johnson indicates in the Rambler, as fiction more closely imitates real life we must face the problem of potentially grouping behind the wrong characters.
Johnson's view on fiction is fairly clear. When the works of fiction concern characters who are not easily identifiable with readers, there is no risk of the reader idolizing the wrong character. As he puts it, "In the romances formerly written, every transaction and sentiment was so remote from all that passes among men, that the reader was in very little danger of making any application to himself". However, at the time Johnson is writing, this is undergoing a change. The fiction of Johnson's time is becoming much more realistic. He warns that "young spectators fix their eyes upon [the characters] with closer attention, and hope, by observing his behaviour and success, to regulate their own practices". Because of this, Johnson argues that writers have to be careful in how they portray their characters. They need to be careful so as when depicting vice in their characters, they do not make these characters, but rather those full of virtue, the ones who find success. In essence, Johnson is asking that the "bad guys" don't win.
While I certainly agree that fiction in whatever form can set examples for people, I am not completely in agreement with Johnson. True, bad practices should not be encouraged, but if the work of fiction is to imitate life, one must stay true to life. Vice is not something to strive for. However, everyone has their bad habits. Most everyone has had an instance in which some wrong action of theirs worked in their benefit. Furthermore, one has to believe in the people, in the readers. One has to believe that readers will not judge the outcome of the action, but the action itself, and figure out which behaviors are right and suitable in society. The object of art is to imitate life, and therefore you cannot hide everything bad in the world. However, it is also on the reader to determine which actions are appropriate.