The Purpose of Cannibalism

The 16^th and 17^th century expansion from Europe to the New World in the Americas provided the substance for fantastic adventure tales. Such exotic and exciting stories, including those surrounding the practice of cannibalism, are now generally perceived as a combination of anecdotal evidence, exaggeration and creative imagination. In fact there is little firm evidence to verify that cannibalism was ever practiced. There invention of such tales provided the Europeans with propaganda to legitimize their brutal conquest of indigenous colonies under the pretext of civilizing barbarous cultures and instilling their perceived cultural superiority upon societies with beliefs they did not understand and feared.

The only first hand account of cannibalism provided in Robinson Crusoe comes from the French Protestant missionary Charles de Rochefort, yet it differs from that of Michel de Montaigne. The treatment of prisoners in either’s tale differs, as Montaigne depicts the captors as “having a long time treated the Prisoners very well, and giving them all the Regalia’s they can think of” before their ritualistic cannibalism. Contrarily, Rochefort’s captor “ties [his prisoner] in an Amac, which he hangs up almost at the roof of his dwelling” and only “after he has kept him fasting four or five days” does the torture and feast occur. If the motivator behind cannibalism was revenge as both claim, why would the conduct vary of captives disagree so markedly? Indeed Dampier, who interacted significantly with indigenous Carribees claimed to “know some of these Cannibal Stories to be false”, and goes so far as to describe their civil nature. Their only violent attack came in what he acknowledges “was to preserve their own right” and property. There is a notable lack of eye-witness accounts as to any eating of other humans outside those who stood to benefit from a negative portrayal of the native populations.

Both Montaigne and Rochefort depict the ferocity of local tribes in battle and sacrifice, practically glorifying the determination and fortitude of warring nations. The song of defiance Montaigne relays and indomitable attitude of Rochefort’s sacrificial prisoner through his torture serves only to reinforce the necessity of enlightening what they viewed as savage beasts.

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.

Grand Theft Chastity

In The Rambler, No. 4, Johnson writes that the novels of his time have the potential to corrupt young people because they reflect real life and can be read as highly instructional. He warns: “To this fatal error all those will contribute who confound the colors of right and wrong, and, instead of helping to settle their boundaries, mix them with so much art, that no common mind is able to disunite them.” Essentially, he see the novel the way people view music, movies and video games today: Powerful tools that must be monitored, lest they teach the young to venerate immorality.

The story of Fantomina by Eliza Haywood is a perfect example of what Swift fears will infest the minds of young people. The lady in the story has no regard for her own integrity or chastity. She doesn’t just lie; she lies in order to get a man to take advantage of her as many times as possible before he looses interest. In the end, neither the lascivious girl nor the womanizing man who has readily fallen for her deceptions are punished at all. The story never denounces the actions of either character and there is no discernible moral at the end. In fact, the only apparent judgment the narrative makes is to describe the “intrigue” as “full of variety.”

Personally, I can’t believe that Haywood’s story was even published at this time and I can see why Swift would be worried about its moral value. I feel like this type of story is equivalent to something like Grand Theft Auto (which I still worry about my younger brother playing) or the movie Scarface—where violence and stealing is glorified. It is definitely kind of scary to think that people use video games to kill animated cops and hookers for fun and that everyone loves to quote Al Pacino’s lines. However, I know that reading Fantomina did not make me want to dress up in different disguises and meet gentlemen, regardless of how clever and ingenious the female protagonist. I also know that no matter how many police cars my brother shoots at in Grand Theft Auto, he will still pull over if caught speeding in real life (hopefully).

(Grand Theft Auto)

Therefore, while Swift is perhaps correct that novels have more sway over our opinions than fairy tales, because “the power of example is so great,” yet I don’t think that he is seeing the bigger picture. The people reading these novels, just like people today, see both good and bad everywhere they look. The mixture of good and evil is what makes the novels believable and verisimilar. If novels (and videogames/TV/movies) praised only the moral and condemned only the wicked, they would be of no more use to us than fairy tales.