Friday, February 1, 2008
Is it Authentic?
Does it matter to your understanding of Moll Flanders as a character, or to your interpretation of the themes in the novel, that while the novel is an "autobiography," its writer is a man? Can you see anything masculine about Moll Flanders the novel or Moll Flanders the character? Is she authentic?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Yes, it definitely matters. Moll Flanders is written from a male’s perspective about a woman’s life. Defoe couldn’t possibly understand what it means to be a woman nor can he tell his female counterparts how to be womanly. For that reason, masculinity seems to overwhelm the novel. Moll is tainted, along with the readers’ view of her. In the previous posting, Moll is said to be the ‘modern woman’. However, it was agreed that her actions were not womanly. In my experience, it is the male who promiscuously flaunts around town having little, if any feelings about his partners. Also, males tend to detach themselves from their children and any real feelings for a mate. They are usually the ones motivated by money.
When I ask myself if Moll Flanders is real, I refer back to her actions and the very beginning of the novel where she doesn’t identify herself, and conclude that she isn’t authentic. In most autobiographies that I’ve read, the person identifies themselves upfront. Did Defoe have something to hide about his character’s true identity? Could the events that unfolded actually happen to one lone person? I believe that it is highly unlikely, though not entirely impossible. However, everything that Moll does came with no real consequence. It is as if Moll’s behavior is dismissed or excused. Her repentance isn’t sincere and seems incongruous.
One last thing, Defoe’s Moll lacks intense emotions. She is rugged and impenetrable. Authentic woman cannot sustain steel walls ad infinitum.
Yes, It does make a difference. Even though the writer is a man, he gives real life situations to his character, which after doing the research for the critical review, is to some degree, a mirror image of his own life. I don't feel that he gave much thought to putting the situations that Moll encountered into a female role. I believe that he was just taking certain aspects of his own life and because moll was a female, shaped a lot of her situations according to what a female might have had to endure.
Her reactions to children and her outlook on life regarding finances is more masculine than feminine. her thought processes regarding regret or justifications for her actions seem to me to be more masculine than feminine also.
Based on the role that women were given during her time, I believe that she is authentic in her need for survival and her reason for justifications of her actions are part of the survival that she needed and endured.
Do I agree with the way she handled her life? Absolutely not, but then that's why, though the writer gives the impression that it is an autobiography, it is fiction with actual accounts of what was endured in NewGate as well as on the streets.
Lady t,
Since I am doing the Critical Introduction on Daniel Defoe, I know that some of the situations that Moll encountered also happened to Defoe. So even tohugh he couldn't possibly understand what it is like to be a woman, he could understand the feelings of poverty, survival, along with the stress that he allowed Moll to endure and handle. I really think he just gave her the feelings and actions of a man, since he obviously is one himself and can't put himself in the shoes of a woman.
I can definitely see masculine traits in the character of Moll Flanders. No matter the type of person she may have presented herself to be, when all is said and done, Moll Flanders is still a woman. The author, who is male, overwhelms his readers with very masculine actions of a feminine character: Moll Flanders has none or very little mothering qualities when it comes to her children. Instead, she is more like a mammal who breeds-- with little concern for the future of her litter-- then casually abandons them.
It has been my life observation that men are more likely to easily abandon their children without a guilty after thought. Most of Moll Flanders actions and reactions are ruthless, manipulating, steely, void of great emotion, and an overall difficult person to understand. I personally have not come in contact with such a ‘hardcore’ female in my lifetime. Perhaps, Defoe, like several infamous serial killers throughout history, who have had issue with only brunettes, blondes, males, etcetera, had some type of serial emotional void with the females of his family; and by which he releases through his writing of Moll Flanders.
In response to Lady T…
Your comments in reference to Moll Flanders character is right on point. For a woman of any time in history, she is just too cold and unfeeling to be believable. There has to come a time when she shows some remorse for her actions, genuine love for her children, or just an overall feminine air without having an agenda. I absolutely agree when you say, “Authentic women cannot sustain steel walls.”
Let me first say that I am a man. I think like a man, I act like a man, and I consider things (mostly) from the viewpoint of a man (though sometimes I giggle like a girl, but that’s neither here nor there). My point in all this is not to assert my masculinity, only to let one know that I do not know how it is to be a woman, which makes it difficult to speak on the issue of whether or not Moll Flanders makes a convincing woman. That being said, I feel like she does. I think more flattering portrayals of women have been made by men, and I don’t think that Moll is a spokeswoman for women and how they do/should behave; rather, she is a testament to how not only women, but how people can behave when they find themselves in desperate situations. Moll’s actions are almost textbook at the beginning of the novel of how women are portrayed: she falls for the handsome, rich man, finds herself powerless to resist his charms, and in the end is burned by his love. It’s when Moll goes out and must make her own way in this world without any help that she becomes more than the stereotypical lovelorn literary lady, and she degrades into what I’m seeing called on our blog as “masculine traits.” One of the main points I see being raised as to her questionable feminism is the issue of her leaving her children. Really? This is your big hang up? This isn’t to say that women aren’t, as a whole, more nurturing and caring, or that the “mother instinct” doesn’t come into play, but this is not true for all women. I have personally know women, lets say my brother’s baby’s momma (I hate the way that sounds, but the other names I have for her are a bit more offensive), who have abandon their children without so much as a second thought, women suffer from postpartum depression in which they experience complete disinterest or repulsion in the child, or even have thoughts of killing the children. Women drown their children in cars, in the bathtub and some simply toss their unwanted child into a dumpster. Are these women not women as well? From the blog entries, it would seem that women are faultless and blameless, completely incapable of abandoning their own child, while a man on the other hand, that beast is capable of anything. Sounds a bit misogynistic to me; I know plenty of fathers who raise and care for their children by themselves because the mother has abandon them, if we could look past such labels as “men” and “women” we could see that we are all, as people, capable of great love – as well as great hate. We are equally commendable and reprehensible, and it’s close minded, narrow thinking such as what is posted in the blogs that makes it so difficult for a father to obtain custody rights, where –in the eyes of the law – an unemployed, drug addled, emotionally vacant whore can raise a child better than its employed, sober, loving father just because one is male and the other is female. I would have thought in 2008, we, as a people, could see past such trivial things a gender and get to the bottom of real issues. But, once again, I digress. Like I said, I don’t know what it’s like being a woman. The other day, I asked my fiancé if she’d taken the dog to the park for a walk. She replied that she didn’t want to go out to the park by herself, something could happen, someone might get her. I thought this silly, since that thought never crosses my mind, but then it made me realize how little I know about being a woman. How the threat of mugging or rape is a very real and present danger, and that’s something I can never identify with… but I have been able to observe the behaviors of women (usually behind some bushes - I’m just kidding, I hide in trees) and from what I’ve seen, the actions of Moll Flanders do not strike me as being exclusively masculine (and, if you can’t tell, I’m a little offended you would think that they do). My point is, there seems to be an unnecessarily high opinion of women on this particular blog, this isn’t to say that women aren’t great or that they don’t offer anything to society, quite the contrary; but to say that no woman could act like that, to say that such behavior is beyond women and only characteristic of something a male would do is not only sexist and ill-informed, it’s just wrong.
In response to Lady T, I agree.
In response to Chuck, I agree.
It's so hard to say if Moll is convincing or not. It feels as if I have to choose sides, and of course, I'll be the feminist bad guy(or girl) in this blog by making that the "masculine" traits appear bad. I had a hard time with this response because I don't think it's fair to pick on the men, but hey, I'm female. My estrogen made me do it.
Grr. In my earlier response, I meant to put "making the 'masculine' traits appear bad..."
Anyway, here's the side I chose, so live with it.
I must admit that the author was not important during my earlier readings of Moll Flanders. Moll seemed authentic enough, but only by just grazing the surface of her character.However, being asked this question has made me delve deeper into the character that is Moll Flanders, and I have to say she is not as convincing as before.
First, I cannot imagine a woman who would toss aside her children so easily without so much as a thought towards their well-being, even if only for a split second. Moll Flanders shows no real remorse for any of her first children. She doesn't even mention her brief periods of motherly responsibilities, nor does she mention her months of pregnancy. She just states the fact that she had so many children by what's-his-face and that's it. No names, nothing. She only mentions if any happened to die.
Second, Moll Flanders was by no means "womanly" enough. She had no real emotions, and most people know that women can be emotional, sometimes over the top. Either way, Moll was too cunning, inconsiderate, and only briefly thought of her sins, but only to justify herself.
Furthermore,she did not have any nurturing aspects, nor was she really able to bond with other women, even though she associated with a few.
Moll Flanders lacked most of those characteristics that would define her as a convincing "woman".
I know this makes it seem as if cunning, inconsiderate, and other not-so-great traits are all "masculine" traits. Not necessarily, but that's a different blog and I won't go into that tedious discussion.
I don't think that it really affects my understanding of Moll Flanders as a character, but I do think it is interesting to consider the fact that the author is a man. During this time in history (the novel being written in 1722), women were viewed as extremely inferior to men. Man was the head of the household, the controller of his wife, etc. He was responsible for the actions of his wife. Women were expected to be humble, meek, pleasant, quiet, and express an attitude of servitude and lowliness towards their husband. It could even go so far as to say that women were viewed as an imperfect form of man. This being said, Moll Flanders refuses to fit into this stereotype. Even during the times in her life when she is married, Moll quietly and secretly controls her husband. Her actions, therefore, are more like that of a man, at least in regard to the expectations of this period in history. Now, why would Defoe create a female character like Moll Flanders? Maybe he does it simply for an interesting story. Maybe he does it to give hope to wmoen during this time. Maybe he even does it subconsciously, without even realizing that he is giving these masculine traits to a woman.
Nevertheless, I still believe that Moll Flanders is an authentic character. She is who she is.
In response to Chuck,
Chuck, and to all men, I deeply apologize if my thread seems a bit callous. I did not in anyway mean to hurt anyone’s feelings here. Please notice the part where I stated that in ‘my experience’ and accept my opinion. I am completely aware of, and I do not have a problem with, men raising their children. Many of my uncles (my own brother for that manner) are currently raising children not belonging to them. I commend men who step-up and support children. I am not a statistical person, but speaking from statistics, men are more likely able to detach their feelings than a woman due to our chemical make-up. I am not asserting anything myself here; this bit of information comes from those who study our behaviors, chemistry, interactions, physiology, et cetera. How many men do you know, Chuck, that have postpartum depression? You really can’t compare men and women actions when it comes to postpartum depression. It is a psychiatric disorder involving hormones; you know the ones that separate men from women—estrogen and testosterone. That’s not to say that I disagree with your response. I am just refuting parts of it. Don’t get me wrong; I am not saying that women are faultless and blameless. We make our fair share of errs. We’re just not as likely to commit such thoughtless acts.
Now back to Defoe and Moll Flanders. I do not believe, and cannot be convinced otherwise, that she as a PERSON (or WOMAN) is real (authentic). It’s quite possible for Defoe to have taken real-life events/characteristics and given them to a fictional character. I give credit to Defoe for being able to pull-it off and fool many of his readers. However, please read through the lines and assess/analyze this character. To do this we will need to ask ourselves a series of questions beginning with: Is it more likely than not…
Is it more likely than not for a woman (of sound mind) to abandon all of her children except for one? (Not likely. We’re more likely to abandon all.) Is it more likely than not for a woman to have several sexual relationships and completely detach her feelings from any and all partners? (It is more likely not). Continue with these types of questions inserting things that Moll did (and seem perfectly able to do without little afterthought) to reach a more plausible conclusion to her authenticity.
It definately matters. Just by the fact that Defoe is a man and Moll is a woman makes a pretty convincing arguement that he made her pretty masculine. She has sex like a man, she looks at relationships how we're told men look at them, and her complete lack of true maternal instict make her seem very fictitious. As a woman when I try to relate to Moll I find it difficult for that reason. However, in the instance when Defoe makes Moll turn into a bit of a romantic he exaggerates it and makes it seem more of something a woman would write.
As far as authenticity goes, I find that at moments she seems very real. That sometimes I forget that the novel was indeed written by somebody else. However, she is far too coarse, too unfeeling, in most of the novel for me to really find her REAL. Even for a woman in her time that has to fight for so much, I find her very masculine. Perhaps she would have been a better man than she was a woman.
Moll’s authenticity undoubtedly comes into question, but if you consider the fact that she was a product of her beginning and her surroundings, her so called ‘masculine’ ways seem a little clearer. The incest, the prostitution, and the thievery were essentially there from the start—beginning with her mother. Moll was born in Newgate, abandoned, and brought up in several different atmospheres before finally settling down at the end of her childhood. In her drive to find someone or something to grasp, she was always let down at the fact that there was nobody there on the other side. Because there was no security and no firm foundation in her childhood, she turned out the way she did. The modern woman, and any ‘normal’ woman for that matter, wouldn’t hold the same traits that Molly did. So call her masculine? Maybe. I don’t remember hearing many people mention that Defoe was a chap during our reading. Most of us were so fascinated in her actions, good and bad, that it didn’t seem to matter who was writing it or that it was even an autobiography. This brings me to think the Defoe accomplished what he intended to do; he wrote a novel about an untraditional woman of her time through masculine eyes so that he might evoke some of the pity and other emotions displayed on this blog. I don’t remember reading many masculine accusations when just a week ago some praised her groundbreaking character reflecting the modern woman. Is the modern woman masculine? Well, I guess some are. Just ask Hillary.
No, it doesn’t matter to me. Despite the book being a novel, fictitious by definition, Moll Flanders is a believable character in comparison with other fictitious works, probably more so. On the surface, she is depicted as a woman who scrapes and claws just to make it by. Looking deeper into her character however, she chooses the means by which she scrapes and crawls. She is without a doubt affected by her environment, but she is not determined by it. In comparison with a painter: even if an artist only has a few colors to choose from, he/she has the liberty to choose the object of décor that the brush creates. If Moll can seemingly cross the Atlantic (more than once) and in the end say that her life of crime resulted in a handsome reward, she could have more than made it through life by doing good, in the very least by following her conscience. Her character is unique from any other character I have read about, but from her perception, she is merely a reflection of the world around her. She is consistently immoral and less than halfway through the story readers can take a good guess that she will continue looking for a husband/s. Perhaps Defoe’s effect on the character of Moll Flanders is that he seemingly without reserve looks into and reveals her thoughts-possibly an honesty that a woman writer would not brave.
In response to Ross,
I really like your comparison of Moll's character to that of a painter. It is very true that Moll did what she thought was best with what little supplies she had. Isn't that what we all do? However, Moll just approaches it in a different manner, i.e. unethically. A different character might have approached it with more of a moral outlook, and could have survived just as well. But it's more interesting the way that Moll does it. And perhaps it is true that Defoe "looks into and reveals her thoughts-possibly an honesty that a woman writer would not brave." After doing my critical introduction on Daniel Defoe, I discovered that during this time in England, criminal activity had increased dramatically, especially among female criminals. Not only is Moll a reflection of the world around her, Defoe is portraying the world around him.
I agree with lady t's note that Moll's impenetratable emotional wall falls outside the stereotypical openly-emotional woman. The key word there is stereotypical. Just because women are generally said to be more delicate, sensitive, and outwardly demonstrative of their feelings does not mean that every woman is so. I don't believe that every woman is. Take for instance the inmates at the women's prisons. There are murders, child molesters, and convicts of other horrible, inhumane crimes. Many of those women committed their crime more than once I am sure, or else committed multiple ones. These women are harder than stone (I realize some may become somewhat remorseful, but I know that many that simply nurse their hate and fury). Now I know that Moll was not such a ruthless woman as a murderer and that that may have been a somewhat extreme connection. That illustration was merely to show that not all women penetratable, not all women fit the "emotional" outfit. Now, granted
Shelley, Shelley, Shelley,
I know that you did the intro for this one, and I’m glad that you pointed out the similarities—and somewhat parallelism—between what happened in Defoe’s life and Moll’s. Since you dug deeper into his life, would you feel that he was trying to take it even further than you said and write an ‘autobiographical” account through a character? Maybe he realized that the woman could be considered the oppressor, and he thought that through his literature, he might be able to open up some eyes to the issue. Women really aren’t that different from men, except for a couple of things ; ).
However, and this goes to many of the other posts, why are we referring to financial and domestic actions by gender? I realize that sometimes most men are to blame for some of the same things Moll is at fault for, but like you said, she was ensuring her survival. Are you going to blame man for ensuring his? Or are you going to have compassion like you seem to show to Moll because she’s a WOman?
This question provides an interesting perspective that I for did not think much of. After discussing the definition of a modern woman and how Moll meets that definition as an independent self serving woman it really explains a lot when you take into account that this novel has a male author. Her emotionless promiscuity and selfish acts, as well as the way she so easily abandons her children are traits often linked to male characters. It is not to say that women are incapable of such acts but seldom do you find fictitious female characters who act in a way similar to Moll. At first glance one may then say that she is a male influenced character that is simply unauthentic. However, in this fictitious story I find Molls character completely believable. Defoe places Moll in a very troubled setting. Few men or women face the obstacles she must overcome to simply survive. The hardened exterior is neither masculine or feminine. it is the demeanor that she had to adopt in order to make it.
Martin, I agree...To say that Moll is an untraditional woman is very fair seeing how she has lived a very untraditional life. From a very early age she was forced to provide for herself and this led her to want a provider in the form of a man. The only problem is that commitment seems to be a foreign concept to Moll. Her life has lacked sincere relationships. She has shown that finding a man that provides for her or even having children is not enough to contain the independent survival which she has always held onto. I also agree in with you in pointing out that we have gotten this far into the book without mentioning what gender the writer was. Moll may be an untraditional character who at times may seem to possess "masculine" traits, but Defoe presents a very believable character in Moll Flanders that many people can relate to regardless of race.
I believe Moll to be a believeable character, despite whether the author was male or female. Quite honestly, I believe that should Defoe have adopted a pseudonym for this book, no one would suspect the author to be a male. What makes Moll real is not who created her mind, but her mind itself. While she may be coy to the men (and ladies) she encounters, Moll was generally pretty honest with herself; we could read her thoughts (literally -- no joke intended I promise!) and thereby glean her motives, trace her logic (and lack thereof in some cases), and follow her survival planning process. Moll may not have showed the real her to the people in her life, but I say that because she is a character we can sympathize with and know well enough to anticipate her next actions, Moll is an authentic character.
I didn't see a problem with the story of Moll Flanders being written by a man. It appears that Defoe is a more compassionate writer than many of the male authors who write about the lives of women. At least he didn't overexaggerate her purposes for using sex as a survival tool. Other male authors would have turned the woman into a complete hooker whose life long goal was to sleep with as many men as possible. Defoe shows the critical elements of humanity in Moll's decision making process as far as what she chooses to do with her body. Simply put, Moll used whatever she thought was necessary to survive just like any other human would have. Perhaps a male would not resort to casual sex for survival as a first thought. However, crime and sex are on level playing field because they are both means to an end.
Post a Comment