Moll Flanders (1722)

Moll Flanders (by Daniel Defoe) was the first book I've had to read for class now I'm at university. This is for my "introduction to the novel" module, and it's considered to be one of the earliest English novels, and is part of the canon as my university sees it. In my opinion, it's not quite there -- Defoe "marketed" it as a true story, and in terms of style or plotting like a novel, there's little. It's just the straight, stream-of-consciousness tale of a woman in the seventeenth century who has loose morals. There are no chapters, the story is entirely linear, and it doesn't follow the same conventions as what we'd now consider a novel.

Which is not to say I don't see where it comes into the canon: it's clearly fictional, and reminds me quite a lot of books like Go Ask Alice, only for the seventeenth century! It's interesting to observe how different things were then: the weird punctuation, random capitalisation and italicisation, the lack of chapter breaks, the lack of speech marks. Very strange to think how much the novel has evolved.

In terms of plot, it's not as shocking as I was expecting it to be given the blurb: "Moll Flanders follows the life of its eponymous heroine through its many vicissitudes which include her early seduction, careers in crime and prostitution, conviction for theft and transportation to the plantations of Virginia", etc. There's not honestly much prostitution, although she has lots of husbands, and the sex stuff is all skipped over quickly. One of the stories within the story is quite weird: the story of how she marries her brother. The theft part doesn't show up until later on, although that isn't half-hearted and a lot of her clever heists are described.

As a character, Moll gets quite a lot of depth; but at the same time, you expect that from a novel of this length that is written entirely in her head! I didn't really feel any emotional connection to her, though, and she didn't feel 'real' to me, really. I found the whole book quite boring and difficult to read. Worth a look, though, if you're interested in early novels. I could probably do a better, fuller review of this after my lecture next week -- heck, I might come back and edit some more interesting stuff in. Right now, though, I need to go off and make notes on the portrayal of women in it, before I forget! ( )

Better than John Bunyan's Grace abounding to the Chief of Sinners; more detailed a portrait than the Wife of Bath, who also, remember, had 5 wives (EDIT: by which of course I mean five HUSBANDS); hell, it's probably the best book of its kind. But how in god's name am I going to teach it?

This edition interesting for its Virginia Woolf introduction, which is mainly about Robinson Crusoe, about which she has more interesting things to say than she does Moll Flanders. The Woolf is also a nice record of a particular kind of criticism that discovered the value of a work of art in its tranhistorical truths about Human Nature. I can see easily how this same period--Woolf's that is--produced The Waste Land and Finnegans Wake, all of which also make the same profoundly ahistorical, profoundly appropriative, profoundly unethical mistake. ( )

I was certainly not happy to hear Defoe insist at length, in the preface, that he'd taken all the dirty parts out.

Defoe was many things as a writer, but "fun" isn't high up the list.

Also, check out this sentence: "She asked him if he thought she was so at her last shift that she could or ought to bear such treatment, and if he did not see that she did not want those who thought it worth their while to come farther to her than he did, meaning the gentleman she had brought to visit her by way of sham." I actually can't figure out if that sentence means anything or not. Is she saying she doesn't want the dude who was willing to travel to hit on her? Why not? Sure, he's actually like her cousin or whatever, but the dude she's talking to isn't supposed to know that...

Dude writes some over complicated sentences, is what I'm saying. I don't remember Crusoe being this convoluted.

Ah! I've been trying to figure out how Defoe writes a book with no women in it, and then a book from a woman's point of view; the similarity is that they both work from desperate places. Places of necessity.

I still need a while to process this book. Around halfway through I thought that not only did I not like it, but it made me like Robinson Crusoe less too. Now having finished it, I feel like it's a five-star book. I might bump it down to four. Defoe is sortof a humorless bastard, and he doesn't particularly get inside his characters' heads. But Moll Flanders, particularly, feels like a very subversive book to me. Moll insists on taking control of her life. Men certainly come off as insignificant at best.

I didn't love the Signet Classic edition I read; it was sorta...little. I like my books to be weightier and more important looking. (And, incidentally, the used copy I ordered came with random passages underlined, which drives me nuts.) Did have a fairly good afterword, though. Although it threatened to spoil like six other 18-century books I'm about to read, so I had to skip whole paragraphs. ( )

2.5/5
I liked the credit Defoe gave to the heroine, I really did. He was able to see clearly into the plight of women during a time when their only source of living was either to marry well, or find work through less than savory means. Moll's time period as a thief was also greatly entertaining. But ultimately, the plot plodded for most of the book, and Defoe's writing style didn't help that at all. The circumstances were also slightly unbelievable at parts, especially near the end; it all ended a little too easily and much too well. Also, I had expected her life to be much worse in the beginning, along the lines of growing up in the streets. Not having a mother is a shame and all, but her life could have been much worse. Her misfortunes really had more to do her choice of bed partners than anything else. That may be an unfair statement, but it is true. ( )

kinda ridiculous, but also kinda funny. It's interesting to see Defoe's stance on religion basically undermine the entire story at the end. or does it? ( )