Talk:Robinson Crusoe (unsourced)

I see at a quick glance that the text has been modernised, perhaps unavoidably, but wonder about the wisdom of dividing it up into chapters in this way. There are no chapter divisions whatsoever in the novel as Defoe wrote it, so repackaging the narrative like this strikes at the structural heart of the original text and is a major departure from his intention. I see the need to split a huge document into manageable chunks. A re-think about how it's to be done might be a good idea. Perhaps include a note of explanation? --Rawdon 20:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm...I could have swarn there was already a talk page here about this same issue just a couple days ago...The best bet would be to include a note of explanation about the text. It really is too long to have all on one page--some browsers wouldn't be able to handle to size--and the chapters are an accepted convention for this book nowadays. It would be best to leave the text the way it is but explain that the original was different. Zhaladshar 00:33, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dividing into chapters is helpful to readers.

Is it helpful to mislead?

it needs to be considered whether it was Defoe's explicit intention not to have chapter breaks, or if they were simply a utility of which he was unaware. given the second option, we need to ask ourselves whether defoe would have broken the text up had he known about "chapter breaks". As he did not specifically leave a note explaining why he expressly chose to keep the book as a unified whole, it can be reasonably assumed that the addition of logical chapter breaks are not a detriment to the book. --69.136.244.138 06:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Defoe would have hardly liked the plot-oriented segemntation. He complained when the first abridged versions appeared about the publishers neglecting his interspersed reflections so much. Instead of dubious chapter-segemantations the text should be quotable - i.e. it should offer page numbers (probably of a good edition - and here I would recommend the first)... this thing is dissatisfying. --Olaf Simons 08:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure of the source of this text. However I imagine it is a transcription of a specific edition that used the convention of chapters.  It seems to me the early versions of the text were significanly different from more modern printings and there is no reason we cannot host multiple versions as was done with The Picture of Dorian Gray.  For the most part works put on Wikisource should aim to be accurate transcriptions of the source being used rather than us trying to imagine how the author would have prefered it to display it.--BirgitteSB 16:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Text of the first edition: Project
I was just looking through the web to find a better edition. Question: couldn't I find participants for work on a text after the first edition? I'd provide the source text in pdf-files and offer webspace at Marteau for a parallel html-frameset-edition which would have the additional advantage of better navigation and commenting. I began work at http://www.pierre-marteau.com/editions/1719-robinson-crusoe.html. To corrrect the text after the first edition would be the main task, the commented Marteau-edition of Behn's Love-Letters might offer a model. --Olaf Simons 15:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have now produced such an edition myself. It would probably be interesting to compare the first edition to the text Wikisource (and Gutenberg) offer - the version-history option would make such a comparison easy; I have however, no patience to bring the text I have now produced into a comparable format. see: http://www.pierre-marteau.com/editions/1719-robinson-crusoe.html


 * Thanks so much, I found this very helpful- I was afraid the edition I am now reading was abridged, but it's only been modernized. I think it might be helpful to have a version on here with original capitalizations, grammar, etc.

This copy
It does seem possible this came from Project Gutenberg - perhaps https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/521 - which has the 20th chapter which is missing from the version here. -- Beardo (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)