Boxall's 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die discussion

Share your thoughts!

{Sorry for the delay.}

I have to say after how much I had enjoyed Robinson Crusoe I found this book somewhat disappointing. It fails to captivate me and I have hard time really getting into it. At points it feels a bit dry, as the narrative voice speaks in such a matter of fact tone, like she is just reporting the events, I feel an emotional disconnect.

Also I just cannot bring myself to like the narrator, nor can I find her sympathetic, which makes reading the book difficult when I find I don't really care about the narrator or what happens to her.

I read this a couple of years ago and, though I don't remember enough detail to actually discuss, it recall that I liked it. In fact, looking at my review , she is exactly as I remembered her: a young woman left to her own devices, given the time in which she lived, found she could survive by her wits. OK, yes, the times made her use her feminine wiles as well.

I really disliked the lack of names in the book. Even "Moll Flanders" is not the narrator's given name. I do understand that it's that way to keep a disconnect with all the different characters (AKA Men) who she comes in contact with. Still annoying though.
But reading this book really made me appreciate living in the time we do now, with all the medical advances that we have as. (ie. birth control, safe, LEGAL termination if one chooses) It get's mentioned in the book very briefly, but Moll doesn't "understand" it, and it's not brought up again.
Even so, I did despise how her "Husbands", (and children)were all so disposable to her. I feel like she would have fit into our time perfectly!

Hima wrote: "I really disliked the lack of names in the book. Even "Moll Flanders" is not the narrator's given name. I do understand that it's that way to keep a disconnect with all the different characters (AK..."

I was surprised by how readily she was willing to abandon her children and how she seemed to lack any real emotional attachment to them and yet speaking as a woman who has no interest in children I am always sympathetic to women in her position and whom do not seem to be maternal by nature, but living in a time in which having children really wasn't much of a choice.

One of the things which bothered me the most about her, is that it seemed as if she had this attitude that if she readily acknowledged and admitted to her flaws that would make her more sympathetic, and just because she states that she knows she was wrong in which she did, means that she should be forgiven for it. Particularly earlier in the book in which she was constantly announcing how vain she knew she was, as if her stating that she was self aware of this fault would make her more likeable. It is as if she was trying to prevent others from judging her, by judging herself.

This was written as a diary. In this way she can do whatever to try to assuage her own guilt feelings. I thought diaries were for written for oneself, so she doesn't have to try to convince anyone else.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "This was written as a diary. I don't see why the writer of a diary would be trying to make herself seem sympathetic. I thought diaries were for written for oneself."

But I think that because obliviously the author is reading this work to be read, even though it is written in the form of a diary there is a certain self-awareness that it will be read by others. And the way in which the character speaks to me sounds like she is addressing an audience, and not just herself.

If it was intended to be purely a private diary I think it would be less pragmatic and more emotional but she does not really give much inside into her own thoughts and feelings, but instead reports upon events which have happened to her, as if she is indeed telling someone else about these things. There is also a section within in which she is quite clearly giving a moral lesson to other young women and so presumably these young women whom she is addressing would be reading what she writes.

Moll Flanders is the author - if Defoe has been successful (which I think he has been). Therefore, Moll is writing for herself, which I think she is. I think she is not emotional. You might have wanted her to be, but I think she is not.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Moll Flanders is the author - if Defoe has been successful (which I think he has been). Therefore, Moll is writing for herself, which I think she is. I think she is not emotional. You might have wa..."

Even if one were able to accept Moll Flanders as the author and separate her completely from Defoe, I still do not think that Moll Flanders is writing purely to herself, there are indications in some of the things she says and the way she says them in which it seems to me she is aware of addressing a reader and that she is not writing purely for herself but is aware that what she is writing is being read by someone else.

While she tells of all her "adventures" & saying how sinful she is, she almost seems proud of herself. She sure was different from Robinson Crusoe.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Moll Flanders is the author - if Defoe has been successful (which I think he has been). Therefore, Moll is writing for herself, which I think she is. I think she is not emotional. You might have wa..."

I agree, she is very flat. It seems to be a personality trait.

It's petty and unimportant, but what bothered me the most is the lack of explanation about how she got rid of her last two children. It was mentioned that she had them, but not that they died or were taken in by anyone. The author should be able to keep track of the characters in his own story.

Tasha wrote: "Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Moll Flanders is the author - if Defoe has been successful (which I think he has been). Therefore, Moll is writing for herself, which I think she is. I think she is not e..."

I had a similar problem earlier in the story. In which when she begins her affair with the older brother, I was pretty sure she stated that she had become pregnant, which I thought was one of the reasons she did not want to marry Robin, the younger brother, but when she does finally consent to marry him nothing is mentioned about her pregnancy by the older brother.

Are supposed to assume that one of the children which she has with Robin was really that of the other brother?

It was as if the pregnancy just vanished and was never referenced.

I read this one a while ago. I really liked it. :-)

Kinda OT, but has anybody counted how many men, and children (inclu. ones that did not survive) she had during her lifetime? It's a miracle that she lived for so long (70?, and had sooo many children. You'd think she would have died during one of the many child births.

There were a lot of things missing from this book to me. It drove me crazy how she left her children all over the place and when she sees her son/nephew (because he was both) she talks about how hard it is for a woman to see her son and not speak to him. But it wasn't hard to leave all those children?

Lauren wrote: "But it wasn't hard to leave all those children? "

Think of the times in which she found herself. How was she supposed to feed and clothe them?

I prefer Roxane which is very similar but stylistically better.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Lauren wrote: "But it wasn't hard to leave all those children? "

Think of the times in which she found herself. How was she supposed to feed and clothe them?"

I do not think it is purely a question of the fact that she did leave them, but the fact that she expressed no remorse for leaving them and seemed not to care for them one way or the other. She cast them away without a second thought. So it was not so much that practically speaking she may have had no choice but that she could do it with such ease.

Once she was done with a particularly husband/lover she simply "threw away" the children she had by him and moved on to the next.

I agree that it those times she did not have a lot of options. I just found it strange that she expressed no feelings of remorse about abandoning children left and right.

I agree that while reading it, I found it very annoying that these kids were abandoned with no second thought or mention again. However when you think about it, the majority of the marriages/relationships which resulted in these children were also negative ones. For various reasons, maybe she felt that by not discussing these children again, she wouldn't have to think about the disastrous or unhappy relationships she had. Her first marriage was one where she had been in love with her brother-in-law, and the 2nd major one was where she married her own brother, so you can kind of understand that when she had the opportunity to leave the children with family who would look after them and also who she would not be having any further contact with she would do so. She also seems to have changed her name and identity quite a bit as we know that "Moll Flanders" was not her real name so perhaps she felt the need to try to rewrite her own history with every new identity?

was anyone else impressed by the fact that Defoe wrote this novel from a woman's point of view. I don't know how rare this was for male authors to do at the time but I thought he did an excellent job of it for the era. Many of the issues that Moll faces must have been issues that many women faced and so I wondered if he brought a certain dignity to the plight of women in society at the time when a more common view may have been to scorn those who, through no fault of their own, found themselves facing destitution and horrendous choices.

Arukiyomi wrote: "was anyone else impressed by the fact that Defoe wrote this novel from a woman's point of view. I don't know how rare this was for male authors to do at the time but I thought he did an excellent j..."

I thought it was interesting that he had written the novel from a woman's first person point of view and I can respect the way in which he did try to bring up many of the issues that faced women and express an understanding of the struggles and plight of women, as well as the double stranded and unfair treatment women received.

But I also felt that his efforts to write in a woman's voice was part of the problem with this novel, as I not entirely sure he had enough of an understanding of women to achieve this goal. I cannot help but wonder if the lack of emotion expressed within the book, and how detached and aloof the character is from the reader, is not due to Defoe's own lack of understanding of women that he could not more convincingly and engagingly capture the woman's voice, so the character seemed kind of "robotic" or "flat" reporting the facts almost like a journalist.

Silver wrote: "Arukiyomi wrote: "was anyone else impressed by the fact that Defoe wrote this novel from a woman's point of view. I don't know how rare this was for male authors to do at the time but I thought he ..."

I have to agree. I think the reason I disliked this book so much was because at no point did Defoe convince me that the book was written from the female perspective.

Silver wrote: "due to Defoe's own lack of understanding of women that he could not more convincingly and engagingly capture the woman's voice, so the character seemed kind of "robotic" or "flat" reporting the facts almost like a journalist. "

This assumes all women are emotional. Remember, in this time, women of money didn't care for their own children. They were turned over to wet nurses and governesses. They were taken into mother for visits, when mother was even in the same household. The younger children were probably left at the country estate while Mother went to London for the season. What we think of as motherly love has evolved.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Silver wrote: "due to Defoe's own lack of understanding of women that he could not more convincingly and engagingly capture the woman's voice, so the character seemed kind of "robotic" or "flat" re..."

All human beings are emotional on some level, and have some sort of feelings about the things that happen to them. We are not robots.

I have read Defoe's "Robinson Crusoe" which was written in a diary like format as well, and of which had a man as the narrator and yet there was still some sense of emotional involvement with the character. I cannot say I found Crusoe sympathetic or very likeable but I did find him more engaging than Moll Flanders is.

The feeling I had from reading this book was that if Moll Flanders does not even care what happens to her in her life, then why should I care?

I am not say she as to be mother of the year or express overwhelming feelings of love for her children, but she could have some actual personality and express some sort of emotional response good or bad to anything which has happened to her.

The pragmatic/journalistic approach to the narrative voice can sometimes work but I just do not feel that it did in this case, at least not for me.

I'm not sure it's necessary to have sympathy for the characters.

I am a very unemotional woman, I've been called robotic, and I agree she lacked personality. Any references to her feelings made it sound like she was trying to convince us she had them.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "I'm not sure it's necessary to have sympathy for the characters."

It is not necessary to have sympathy for a character, though when dealing with a first person narration, it helps if one has some interest in the main character.

I did not find Robinson Crusoe a sympathetic character, I rather disliked him in many respects, but I did find him engaging.

Moll Flanders I find to be utterly uninteresting, and not just because I do not feel sympathy for her, I just flat out don't care what happens to her. Even with a character you really don't like you might at least wait to see if they get what they deserve in the end.

But with Moll I don't hate her or love her, she is just there.

Silver wrote: "But with Moll I don't hate her or love her, she is just there. "

And this is what made it so good.

I'm not sure Moll Flanders is intended as entries in a diary. Usually, this form displays specific dates as headers or sub-headers. Not so here, at least in my version. An introduction to the Modern library edition mentions something of a Preface in relation to the identity of the narrator, but it's not included as part of the actual ML text. Whether the books is true diary or no, it's clear the narrator writes anticipating an outside reader.

I expect Defoe approached this subject with an interest in detailing the various economic hardships and risks that beset women in 18th century England. (Was there no life insurance for wives at this time?) Women of poor means, it seems, were always forced to negotiate from a position of weakness -- inside the law. Outside the law, as Moll demonstrates, they were in a more favorable position, albeit problematic from a moral standpoint. DeFoe goes to great lengths -- and generating some tedium -- depicting the particulars of her crimes and showing how guile, wit and perseverance -- along with a keen survival instinct -- are requirements for someone like Moll to successfully profit from her enterprises and keep one step ahead of the sentencer at Newgate. I agree with Arukiyomi that the book reflects a sympathetic viewpoint for the plight of women from the lower classes, and, in some degree, an aspect of that sympathy can be found in Moll's relentlessly logical, realistic assessments of her situation at various points in the story. It's as if Defoe is saying, the only way Moll keeps body and soul together is by playing the percentages like any man: Let him who has not thought like this on lawful and sanctioned matters cast the first stone. It's not 'Unsex me here' from Lady Macbeth exactly, but neither is it the long-suffering and abused Helen from 'The Tenant of Wildfell Hall'. (I do think the implicit callousness of Moll towards some of her children is more about Defoe's narrowness of theme rather than any calculated plot development). Those Enlightenment Brits, by the way, were indeed tough on shoplifters and the pickpockets: 100 years or so later, we get the Artful Dodger shipped off to Australia, but in Defoe's world, the more likely punishment for adults, it seems, was the hangman's noose!

I was amazed how she just kept going and going, no matter what happened to her. I was also surprised by how she left her children everywhere, but I guess that was a product of the times.

However, I was disappointed by the writing and delivery. I'm not sure what I was expecting, but I think if there had been more reflection by Moll on her life, then it would have been more enjoyable. Yet, it was like Defoe pulled down a curtain after each event happened and pushed Moll into a new one. I was waiting for a scene when she would just sit down and think about everything and how it has made her feel, how it's made her change her actions...you know, the process of learning and living? Maybe that's why she is kind of stagnant, kind of like a puppet for Defoe.

Moll Flanders is not a diary - it's an autobiographical memoir. At least it says so in the introduction to my edition ;-) But if you look in the book, it's clear she writes to someone other than herself when she writes 'It is enough to tell you ...' and for me, throughout the book, I never doubted, that she was writing it to be read by someone else/Daniel Defoe wrote it based on her memoirs ('Written from her own Memorandums', it says in mine).
I also felt that she just left children everywhere - even the child she did care for, the one she paid for the upkeep of, she just forgets about him and moves on, even though she liked his father. And when in the end, she meets her son/nephew, it seems like she has forgotten all the other children. Yes, it's hard to see your adult child whom you have never seen before - but what about all the other children who never got to know their mother - or who was just abandoned when marriages/relationships were broken? It was probably tough on them too - even in that time, where the parent-child relationship isn't like it is in our time.
I've read Fanny Hill, or Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure and half of Clarissa, or the History of a Young Lady and now this. I haven't been impressed with either of them. I do like that I think the authors is trying to improve women's status and I think it's interesting to compare the three. But reading them isn't exactly a pleasure...

My copy says that it was written to be supposed as a memoir but that it is a work of fiction. While reading I could not understand how anyone might suppose that it was anything but a work of fiction.

Yes, Moll Flanders is entirely a work of fiction. This person never existed under that name or any other.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Yes, Moll Flanders is entirely a work of fiction. This person never existed under that name or any other."

Agreed!

I felt like the only time we saw any humanity/"emotions" from her, was towards the end, very briefly. And even then, she was relaying information to the reader, not really conveying anything real.
Oh, the only other time she reacted in a "normal" way, was after she discovered that her Virginia Husband, was her half-brother as well. Thankfully, that had gotten a real response from her!

One of the things that I really like about Moll Flanders as a character is that she is almost entirely unapologetic. She realizes that she has not lived an exemplary life, or even close to it, but she feels no need to excuse her actions. Usually I would hate a character like that, but for some reason I like her cheekiness. In fact, I have a very naughty dog named Molly who often gets called "Moll" for just that reason.

totally agree with this Keri. She sounded like someone who had her act together and a very balanced view of how she'd caught what life had thrown at her.

I realize this is a Boxall book for serious reasons (male writer presenting female narrator, plight of women, feelings, emotions, etc.) but I took it more as a frivolous read. I thoroughly enjoyed it - it was like 17th century smut. I pictured women (realizing literacy wasn't quite what it is now) back in the day taking a breather between ordering servants around and catching up on the adventures of Moll. It was a look into a different kind of life than most people lived/live. I thought it was highly enjoyable as a true crime/gritty life story. I'm not sure I would have enjoyed it if I tried to go deeper with it, but I'm adding Robinson Crusoe to my list after this. I hope it's as much fun.

I really enjoyed Moll Flanders. Instead of seeing Moll's ability to discard children as the author's failing to obtain a woman's viewpoint, I thought it fairly accurately portrayed a woman who'd been abandoned twice in her own childhood. The child that distressed her most was the child she abandoned in infancy when her ownnmother abandoned her. I've run into women in our "modern" age who don't have much emotional attachment to their older children because they themselves weren't mothered. The mother/child attachment is very strong biologically, but it can be messed up.
On the other hand, her lack of social support drove most of the story. If she had remained connected to her children or a husband, she would likely have never plummetted to the depths of her crimes, and there would be no story.
I enjoyed the message of a woman's self reliance. And, I particularly enjoyed the ending in which she was constantly turning to her husband and handing him more money.

Blair wrote: "I realize this is a Boxall book for serious reasons (male writer presenting female narrator, plight of women, feelings, emotions, etc.) but I took it more as a frivolous read. I thoroughly enjoyed..."

I'm still early in the book - she's still trying to decide what to do about Robin's proposal - but so far I agree with you. It's certainly not "scandalous" by today's definition, but I'm envisioning how I would have reacted to this story back in the day, and I can imaging women gasping and fanning themselves!

While I admit that I'm not connecting with Moll's character, I am finding it very entertaining.

I've made it to Volume II. She's now had a grand total of 12 children, although I've only been able to keep track of 10 of them dying, abandoned, or adopted. She had 2 with the latest husband who died, and now she's a thief, but I'm not sure what she did with her two children.

And, that brings me to my question. How is it that sadness makes folks so sick back then? I mean, she was laid up in bed several times from depression. And now her husband had taken ill and DIED because he lost money. I simply don't understand this...

Sunny in Wonderland wrote: "I've made it to Volume II. She's now had a grand total of 12 children, although I've only been able to keep track of 10 of them dying, abandoned, or adopted. She had 2 with the latest husband who..."

Life before Prozac and therapy:)

Sunny in Wonderland wrote: "I've made it to Volume II. She's now had a grand total of 12 children, although I've only been able to keep track of 10 of them dying, abandoned, or adopted. She had 2 with the latest husband who..."

I wonder if the standard "cure" for depression was blood letting? Perhaps they had all the blood leeched right out of them...

I think nutrition wasn't particularly good in those days and depression often results in a lack of appetite and sleep issues. Not eating and not sleeping can lead to serious physical disorders.

Blair wrote: "Sunny in Wonderland wrote: "I've made it to Volume II. She's now had a grand total of 12 children, although I've only been able to keep track of 10 of them dying, abandoned, or adopted. She had 2..."

:D

I'm working on this book. I say I'm working on it because I find it a little bit difficult. I downloaded it in Libribox in audio, and it was everything fine until chapter 4 or 5, when it changed reader and it was very difficult to understand, because the reader was obviously sick and she sounded really tired. Which makes me feel pity, buy on the other hand, I whish the quality of the reader was better so I can listen to it and understand it.

English is not my first language, and despite I enjoy this old style English, it is not easy for me, so I'm quite slow to read it on Kindle.

Angela wrote: "English is not my first language, and despite I enjoy this old style English, it is not easy for me, so I'm quite slow to read it on Kindle. "

I so admire those of you who read in a language other than your own.

Would it make it better if you listened to the audio while following along on the kindle?

Thank you very much for your note, Elizabeth! I'll give it a shot and tell you later. :)

Arukiyomi wrote: "was anyone else impressed by the fact that Defoe wrote this novel from a woman's point of view. I don't know how rare this was for male authors to do at the time but I thought he did an excellent job of it for the era. Many of the issues that Moll faces must have been issues that many women faced and so I wondered if he brought a certain dignity to the plight of women in society at the time when a more common view may have been to scorn those who, through no fault of their own, found themselves facing destitution and horrendous choices. "

YES!!!

i though a big point of this book was to point out exactly how few choices women had. even though moll's first marriage is to a country gentleman, and a professional to boot, once he dies, their kids are absorbed by the family while she's left to rot. she tries several times throughout the narrative to do what's morally correct...and then is faced with the options to either be a shady lady indeed or to starve on the street. yep, Keri, she's brutally pragmatic, but in the same situation, i hope i'd come up with something more full of backbone than to roll over and die myself.

but for all that, in the end, i found this book to be merely ok. that pragmatic streak (while feeling utterly genuine) didn't necessarily make for the most compelling read - if she's not going to wring her hands and act as though her straits are dire, i can't do it for her, and eventually, it all just comes off like a laundry list of "bad stuff i have done for reasonable reasons."