An essay examining the motives of Long John Silver

NOT WANTED: Long John Silver for mutiny, deceit...

An essay examining the chief antagonist in Robert Louis Stevenson’s novel, Treasure Island

Long John Silver is one of the most infamous fictional characters of the early 20th century. In spite of this, at the end of his book, he was allowed to go free! Why would this be allowed to happen? The protagonists of Stevenson’s novel could have easily captured him and had him behind bars within a matter of weeks! The evidence was there. Silver had been caught in the act of mutinying, the worst crime on the sea (apart from murder), and the motive for that mutiny was clear. Theft!

Typically, an author does not create a nice ending for the antagonist. Usually at the end of a story the antagonist pays for what he has done during the story. Usually he is confined for a time, or he is deported and his property taken away, or he is killed. For example, look at Shakespeare’s “Macbeth”. Macbeth takes counsel with the weird sisters (witches), murders the King, and arranges for the murder of his best friend, Banquo and his son. Is he allowed to go free? No! He dies an agonizing death in battle and in the last scene of the play his head is carried in on the end of a spear. This is fair treatment for one so evil, right? Then why was Silver allowed to go free? Why did Stevenson allow the chief antagonist to escape with only an accidental, non-life-threatening, bullet hole in the leg?

Maybe Stevenson pitied Silver. Maybe he couldn’t bear killing him at the end of the story. After all, both the pirates and the protagonists were on the same mission. In fact, Jim, the narrator, is with the pirates on their final search for the treasure. He is there when the location is found, along with Silver and other pirates. If they hated each other, wouldn’t Jim have been shot when the pirates saw that he was with them? He wasn’t.

During the voyage to Treasure Island, Silver makes the following rather interesting quote:

“Here it is about gentlemen of fortune. They lives rough, an they risk swinging, but they eat and drink like fighting-cocks, and when a cruise is done, why it’s hundreds of pounds instead of farthings in their pockets.”

That quote, along with this conversation had by doctor Livesey and the Squire toward the beginning of the novel, helps to form an idea as to why the two groups of men ended up fighting:

“Money!” cried the squire. “Have you heard the story? What were [the pirate who originally hid the treasure and his crew] after but money? What do they care for but money? For what would they risk their rascal carcasses but money?”

“That we shall soon know,” replied the doctor. “But you are so confoundedly hot- headed and exclamatory that I cannot get a word in. What I want to know is this: sup- posing that I have here in my pocket some clue to where [the treasure burying pirate] buried his treasure, will that treasure amount to much?”

“Amount, sir!” cried the squire. “It will amount to this. If we have the clue you talk about, I’ll fit a ship in Bristol dock, and take you and [the narrator] here along, and I’ll have that treasure if I search a year.”

This may provide a clue to why the men commenced fighting, and, knowing that, I will explain why Silver was allowed to go free.

Both Silver and the Squire seem to want the treasure very badly. Thus, they are selfish. As the Squire said, he wanted the treasure so much that he would search for a year until he found it. Silver also wants the treasure very badly, partly because it belongs to Flint, a pirate who he used to sail under and is now dead, and partly because he is a pirate and he wants to get rich! Two selfish men, both used to having people obey them without question, both great men in their ‘professions’, and both on the same ship going to the same island to look for the same treasure. This would cause trouble. In fact, it does cause trouble and many people die in the fighting that ensues.  

Could this fighting have been avoided if the Squire had seen past his selfish ambitions and realized that the treasure really belonged to Silver? Of course, Silver shouldn’t have tried to start a mutiny, but should the Squire have built an outpost and supplied his men with guns even before fighting began? The pirates might have misinterpreted this action and thought it was to guard the the treasure from them. They might have got the impression that they were not going to get any of the treasure. Why would this lead to a fight? Because, as I stated before, they wanted the treasure!

If both sides wanted all the treasure, there naturally would’ve been a fight. Is the Squire not at fault also? He did the same things Silver did, although in a different order:

Silver: Wanted treasure || Tried to take over (mutinied) || Fought with Squire’s side || 

Squire: Wanted treasure || Tried to take over (built outpost) || Fought with pirates ||

Although they committed them differently, both men really are guilty of the same crimes. If there was to be a hanging resulting only from this mission, I think that, in the trial, there would be two parties found guilty.  

So that is why I think it was right of the Squire to let Silver go free. Actually, the whole mission is a big joke because when the adventurers finally get to the site of the treasure, all they find is three gold coins! Was Stevenson trying to illustrate the futility of trying to build up riches on the earth? Was he illustrating that selfishness and rash ambition will get you nowhere? Whatever the reason for the writing of this book, whether for the fun of the author or the enjoyment of his audience, it is one of the best pirate stories ever written!

Finiś