Sign in with Facebook
Whitaker's Reviews > Moll Flanders
Moll Flanders
by
by
Did I enjoy this novel? No. In some ways, its story and writing technique are far too rudimentary for a 21st century reader. It certainly didn't grab me the way other books have. But I think if you want to see how the novel got from there to here, you can't pass this by.
Because reading Moll Flanders is like watching the grainy footage of a home video of your lover at five years old. You can see the gestures and traits that make up the person today, but only sketched out in infant form. You have to love it because you love the fully formed adult person now, and it's so squee-fascinating to see that some bits have been there since the very beginning.
I'm a bit of lit-geek and I loved seeing how you could see the beginnings of the character/realist novel in Moll Flanders. The whole thing is more plot than character. Certainly Moll has far less internal substance and texture than Madame Bovary or Anna Karenina. However, Moll is also the progenitor or one of the progenitors of later heroines like Scarlett O'Hara (Gone with the Wind / Margaret Mitchell) or Emma Harte (A Woman of Substance / Barbara Taylor Bradford): survivalist bad girl who triumphs over everything the author throws at her.
And boy does he throw everything at her: "husband" #1 is a seducing cad who marries her off to his brother; husband #2 dies after a few years of marriage; husband #3 turns out to be her brother; husband #4 is a highway man who tricks her into marrying him but eventually lets her go; husband #5 is a decent man who dies after five years of marriage. And in between husbands 3 and 4 is an extended love affair. And so, Moll is also the daughter of the Wife of Bath.
Was this a good read? Not in the fun sense of the term, nor in the value-judgement sense either. But I think it certainly belongs in the canon and if that's something that matters to you (and there's zero reason why it should), then it certainly was a good read.
Because reading Moll Flanders is like watching the grainy footage of a home video of your lover at five years old. You can see the gestures and traits that make up the person today, but only sketched out in infant form. You have to love it because you love the fully formed adult person now, and it's so squee-fascinating to see that some bits have been there since the very beginning.
I'm a bit of lit-geek and I loved seeing how you could see the beginnings of the character/realist novel in Moll Flanders. The whole thing is more plot than character. Certainly Moll has far less internal substance and texture than Madame Bovary or Anna Karenina. However, Moll is also the progenitor or one of the progenitors of later heroines like Scarlett O'Hara (Gone with the Wind / Margaret Mitchell) or Emma Harte (A Woman of Substance / Barbara Taylor Bradford): survivalist bad girl who triumphs over everything the author throws at her.
And boy does he throw everything at her: "husband" #1 is a seducing cad who marries her off to his brother; husband #2 dies after a few years of marriage; husband #3 turns out to be her brother; husband #4 is a highway man who tricks her into marrying him but eventually lets her go; husband #5 is a decent man who dies after five years of marriage. And in between husbands 3 and 4 is an extended love affair. And so, Moll is also the daughter of the Wife of Bath.
Was this a good read? Not in the fun sense of the term, nor in the value-judgement sense either. But I think it certainly belongs in the canon and if that's something that matters to you (and there's zero reason why it should), then it certainly was a good read.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Moll Flanders.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
August 23, 2010
–
Started Reading
August 24, 2010
– Shelved
November 9, 2010
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-8 of 8 (8 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Robert
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
Nov 10, 2010 02:33AM
I'd forgotten about her brother! I agree that the main interest of this novel is from the perspective of the historical development of novels. Where do you stand on the "irony in Moll Flanders" debate?
reply
|
flag
I didn't know the "irony in Moll Flanders" debate. A lot of it seems to turn on whether the morality espoused by Moll is sincerely meant. Correct me if I'm wrong--it's based on a quick google. I think it's a mistake to try to read Moll as a fully formed character the way MB or AK were written. That would be to impose 21st century eyes on an 18th century work. It's unlikely I think that Defoe would have thought of her in those terms. I think as social commentary, Defoe was arguing that the poor were not instrinsically immoral: his was the original culture of poverty argument. On this view, Moll was his sock puppet. Through her, he says that the poor are largely forced into immorality by their circumstances, that they would have been "upright" citizens if born into wealth. And as for her "enjoyment" of her immoral behaviour, it's useful to remember that on that score he aims some well-placed barbs at the well-to-do themselves, many of whom come off looking quite immoral in the novel.
I agree with your analysis: Moll Flanders may be the first social satire novel. Moll is most definitely exploited and if she gets some pleasure out of her situation, that does not alter the the fact that she is being used.
I think Defoe's view of her character is why I like her. Yes, as you say, she's his sock puppet, but he seems far more sympathic to her than say Richardson does Clarissa. In turn, I think this makes the reader feel something for her.
:-) Well, I've never read Clarissa but you're right about Defoe I think.
I think you should read Clarissa.
love your grainy footage analogy. want to know how much of defoe is in moll/moll is in defoe.
Dan wrote: "love your grainy footage analogy. want to know how much of defoe is in moll/moll is in defoe."Thanks, Dan. Yes, that would be such a cool thing to find out.
