While the various exploration readings we’ve done are all different, I think there is a major theme throughout every narrative of self-serving excuses and explanations. Like some other people have said, we’re still not entirely clear on what Léry’s goal is in his narrative. So far we’ve gotten evidence that his audience is the nobility and kings of France. However, what I noticed most was that even though the first four chapters have only shown them arriving in the region of islands near the equator and seeing a LOT of animals, there is still so much justification of every step in his journey. For instance, as the seamen begin resorting to pillaging every ship they run into, Léry attempts to distance himself from them, describing their actions as distinct to seamen. He even says he regrets their actions, “…this pretty piece of work, committed to the great regret of a number of us.”

This extensive justification for their actions mimics Columbus’ continual justifications and reasoning for his (mis)adventures. As every explorer we’ve read has done, Léry records his voyage with a purpose – a very transparent purpose. It follows that he would insert reasoning that paints him as the “good guy” who takes the moral high ground.

However, just like Columbus, Léry can’t use excuses and reasoning to pick and choose when he’s a part of this rough group of seamen.