Reading Moll Flanders made me very glad that I live in the time that I do for 2 main reasons: 1) I have the ability to work, provide for myself, and live independently without relying on marrying, and 2) birth control.
So Moll Flanders was written by Daniel Defoe in 1722, but Moll herself indicates that the she wrote the narrative of her life in 1683, meaning the actual storyline was intended to occur from roughly 1620 to 1683, given the age Moll indicates she is toward the end of the book. However, nearly the entire time I was reading the book, I thought it took place in the mid-1800s, and kind of kept thinking, "Mmmmeh, having multiple husbands and a little whoring around couldn't have been that big of a deal in the mid-1800s. It wasn't that long ago." But when I actually got to the end and realized when it was set, I figured, "Ok, I suppose that's a little more scandalous than I thought."
I think reading this book in 2012 was an interesting exercise, particularly reading some of the scholarly commentary that accompanied the book at the time it was written that seemed to imply that this was a morally reprehensive novel, due to its descriptions (glorification?) of wickedness, dishonestly, and thievery. And probably because Moll is generally a pitiable character (and even kind of likeable, at least in my eyes) that it kind of makes the things she does seem acceptable, or at the very least forgivable given her circumstances.
And while her actions certainly weren't acceptable in the 1600s or even now, it's so very clear that the moral barometer has shifted quite significantly since then. Premarital sex? Affairs with a married man? It seems like these are common place these days. I kind of had to keep reminding myself what a huge deal it was for a woman to carry on and behave the way Moll did in the time it was set. And I'm sure that while the moralistic individuals who read the book in the 1700 and 1800s may have wanted to see Moll get the punishments she deserved, I was secretly rooting for her the whole time. But I won't reveal to you who would have been satisfied with how the book ended, the morally responsible individuals, or Lisa, the heathen.
So overall, I absolutely loved Moll Flanders. And not because of its progressive views towards women, but because it's just a good story, and told in a way that lures you in, and feels very real. I think Defoe was known for doing this very well - making fictional stories seem true. I'll see how true that is when I get around to Robinson Crusoe.
In the meantime, it's on to Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad. The book I bought was the Barnes and Nobel Classics version which actually includes a few other short fiction stories by Conrad. And because I'm weird like that, I have to read the damn thing cover to cover, including these other stories, the introduction, the timeline of Conrad's life, the commentary at the end, the discussion questions, the footnotes, all of it. I know, I'm strange. But I'm already looking forward to this book even though I'm only in the Introduction. And I'll be required to watch Apocolypse Now after I'm done reading it too (which I've never seen - **insert shocked, indignant gasp here**). Did you know it was based on Heart of Darkness? Because I didn't.
Lists have been updated. 252 books to go. And 10 days until my 33rd birthday. Have a rainy Tuesday.
No comments:
Post a Comment