Some Basic Comparison Points between: Frankenstein, Gulliver’s Travels, Hard Times, and Robinson Crusoe

Writing from an analytical point of view, the strongest element present within the following four novels (Frankenstein, Gulliver’s Travels, Hard Times and Robinson Crusoe), is clearly, what is to be perceived as humanity’s greatest weakness: an inner passion to achieve one’s goals. Without inner drive, there would be very little within these stories to write about, which in each case leads to the character’s downfall. In Gulliver’s Travels we can see the love Gulliver possesses towards the sea and the adventures it promises, causing his predicament of being captured four times throughout the story. Even when Gulliver senses the need to return home at the end of his third journey: “I thought it more consistent with prudence and justice to pass the remainder of my days with my wife and family” (p226), he lasted five months at home before venturing out on his fourth and final journey (p243). In Robinson Crusoe, we also see how his desire to seek adventure by being “satisfied with nothing but going to sea” (p5) lands him in a similar situation, where he is stranded on an island to fend for himself. Hard Times takes a different root, with a thirst for learning and teaching Facts as they are all that is “wanted in life” (p1), leaving Mr. Gradgrind’s two eldest children emotionally unavailable. However, the reader does see how the collapse of his daughter, Louisa, makes him re-evaluate his extreme ways as he realises such an unbalanced life may not be the most satisfactory way to live, saying “if I see reason to mistrust myself for the past, Louisa, I should also mistrust myself for the present and the future” (p199). Also, within Frankenstein, we discover how a similar yearning towards academics is the curse upon Victor, when all his efforts are put into a monstrous creation. However, it is his own fear that actually provokes the dreadful events occurring within the tale, understood when the monster delivers the line: “I was benevolent and good; misery made me a friend” (p100), showing how he was originally a wholesome soul, but the neglect placed upon him transformed him into an uncaring creature.

Continuing with the theme of fear we can also witness it in Robinson Crusoe, regarding the perimeter he retreated to on the island, after finding evidence of cannibals: I “kept close within my own circle for almost two years after this” (p132). This cannibalism is an extreme example of ‘cultural relativism’, when Crusoe was originally confronted by the horror of an action so unacceptable in his own culture, he was in two minds as to whether he should take on the job of God or not, by ending the lives of the so called “savages”. Nevertheless, when he had thought on it more, he concluded that this was not a gesture of crime where they came from, and, as it did not directly affect him, he left it to God to pass judgment on them (p136). Within Frankenstein, we see how the monster is not as lucky as Crusoe and has a lack of actually being able to see cultural relativism. He is unable to comprehend the custom of the human race, to flee from all that which they do not understand or is different from them. After being pushed to loneliness, the monster comes to the opposite conclusion and decides to take on the role of God, beginning to murder all those close to his creator. To contrast this, throughout Gulliver’s Travels, we see Gulliver in various kingdoms unlike his own, and he was so understanding towards the ways that differed, that by the time he came to the end of his travels he rejected his own race, and wished to live alone (p314). This was demonstrated when he was rescued against his will by the Portuguese ship, and pleaded for them to leave him abandoned on the island: “I again desired leave to depart” (p317).

Throughout three of the novels, we see many situations going with the flow of nature, and many others going against it. In Gulliver’s Travels for example, the reader witnesses how the Houyhnhnms (the horse race from part IV) take on beliefs that we in our world would associate with ignorance, such as their lack of a definition to express the word ‘lies’, by the need to say “the thing which was not” (p263). It exhibits a positive existence without the need for such means, being able to concentrate their energy on the natural beauty of life. The opposite of this is present in both Frankenstein and Hard Times, where Frankenstein goes irrevocably against nature, constructing a monstrosity from the flesh of the dead. This monster not only defies the cycle of life, as the deceased would now not become food or fertilizer as their body parts would be needed to construct younger generations, but it also invades the role of God by creating life, a trait that no human should posses or pursue outside of the natural means of conceiving. In Hard Times, the main character, Mr. Gradgrind, employs the most rigorous belief in Facts, and furthers his obsession to the point of only enforcing factual teachings on any child under his direction. Of course, as this mode of knowledge is not natural, we see how multiple lives are affected, including the strong possibility of this being why Tom gambles, later having to flee the country; Louisa entering a marriage she knows she can’t possibly be happy in; and even Stephen’s unfortunate death. From these points, we can conclude that no life which only incorporates anti-natural aspects can be a content one, however, it would seem for the most part that an all-natural life philosophy could be a prosperous and fulfilling one.

Moving on, a good question which is bought up in two of the novels is: are people born good and life turns them bad, or are people directly born corrupt? In Hard Times, the most prominent example of this is in the character of Mr. Bounderby, who during the whole novel insists upon his abandonment as a child by his mother, being left to the care of his abusive grandmother, and lacking an education owes all his success to his own making (chapter IV). However, the reader finds out near the end of the novel that he did in fact have a loving childhood living with his parents, although poor as he had stated, and that it is actually him who abandons them to go in search of a higher status. It is in his efforts to prosper that he turns into a corrupt liar, leading to the answer that this is in fact something you become. In Frankenstein we see proof of the same conclusion, where the monster being kind hearted and loving at first, goes on to become the wretch that he is known for. We can see this by part of the story he narrated, when his growing affection towards the De Lacey family leads him to try and help them whenever he can: “I discovered also another means through which I was enabled to assist their labours. […] and brought home firing sufficient for the consumption of several days” (p111). Aside from this more minor action, the monster does actually point out how he was originally “benevolent”, and that it was his suffering, which had been so extreme and continual, that had left him with no other choice.

An important area present in both Gulliver’s Travels and Frankenstein is language, where there is a very conscious need to learn new ones, as two of the main characters use them as tools on their journeys. The ability Gulliver has in picking up languages each time he encounters a new culture, and doing so efficiently, shows his intellectual talent. It also indicates similarities to the capability of Frankenstein’s monster, who essentially taught himself a human language by listening to the De Lacey family talking in the distance, and reading a couple of books that he happened to come across, but does not receive any direct teaching.

Defoe, Daniel. Robinson Crusoe. Penguin Classics, 2003.

Dickens, Charles. Hard Times. Penguin Popular Classics, 1994.

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. Oxford World’s Classics, 1998.

Swift, Jonathan. Gulliver’s Travels. Penguin Popular Classics, 1994.