You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.21 AVERAGE
3.21 AVERAGE
In spite of the moralizing and the archaic spellings and the run on sentences, I enjoyed this very much. OK, fine. I *like* the archaic and inconsistent spelling. Defoe is very readable, and Moll is an engaging heroine - sharp and quick to recognize failings in others, but generally not holding grudges, and unable to see her own little hypocrisies. It's a fun read.
The story was kinda nice, even though I hated the ending, that girl then LEAVES THE COUNTRY NOT AS A PRISONER??? AND SHE'S RICH??? I would've LOVED it if she like died in prison or something. But you know, it was entertaining.
I found this book a bit monotonous and even boring at times. Although some parts are interesting, historically, I didn't really like it.
I don't blame Moll for living the life she did. What choice did she have in 17th century England anyway being an orphan, born in prison? She wanted a life where she could be her own boss, and she did all she could to attain it. Moll is a go-getter, for sure. I did give this book 3 stars only because some parts were very repetitive, especially in the latter half of the book.
This was a really difficult read for me (I actually ended up switching to reading along with an audiobook after 60 pages) because of the writing style and repetitive nature of the plot. The characters were completely dislikeable and I found that this kept me detached from the story. Despite this, the storyline was interesting on the whole and I think people who like slower reads would definitely enjoy this one.
Interesting plot, although I feel like Defoe made an excessive effort to compile all the possible misfortunes in the world into a single life. I wasn't too excited about the narrating style, either. First person narration is always risky, and in this book it becomes rather repetitive after a while.
Overall, a good book to add to the classics shelf.
Overall, a good book to add to the classics shelf.
Moll Flanders describes how she fell into whoring (her words) and thievery. Basically it's a long rambling tale of her life as she moves from one husband to the next, sometimes marrying one husband while still "technically" married to the last, and leaving a litany of children in her wake (whom she seems to have little interest in at all, despite assurances otherwise).
The point of the story is that this is supposed to be a tale of the misfortunate, as tales about thieves, murders, and other miscreants were very popular at the time period.
It had enough to it that I was able to keep trudging through it, as she fell into one misfortune after another (kind of like watching a train wreck). But I have to admit that I was severely disappointed in the book, because I so loved the movie. True, the movie had been Hollywood-zed big time, but in my opinion this is one of the very rare cases where this was a good thing. Moll was more naive in the movie, not so much trying to con her way through live but falling into the necessity so as to survive, which is part of what appealed to me. The book's Moll lacked that innocence, and was openly deceptive and conned many men (from fear of poverty, true), and there was very little to redeem her.
Tar and feather me, if you like, but in my opinion the movie was more enjoyable than the book.
The point of the story is that this is supposed to be a tale of the misfortunate, as tales about thieves, murders, and other miscreants were very popular at the time period.
It had enough to it that I was able to keep trudging through it, as she fell into one misfortune after another (kind of like watching a train wreck). But I have to admit that I was severely disappointed in the book, because I so loved the movie. True, the movie had been Hollywood-zed big time, but in my opinion this is one of the very rare cases where this was a good thing. Moll was more naive in the movie, not so much trying to con her way through live but falling into the necessity so as to survive, which is part of what appealed to me. The book's Moll lacked that innocence, and was openly deceptive and conned many men (from fear of poverty, true), and there was very little to redeem her.
Tar and feather me, if you like, but in my opinion the movie was more enjoyable than the book.
[3.5]
After reading the laughable preface, I thought I would be reading this book merely to pull it apart for its dated opinions regarding women. Whilst this novel is filled with obvious authorial opinions rather than solely attempting to honestly narrate from a women's perspective, the story was more compelling that I originally expected. It was filled with glaring plot holes (what happened to all her children?) and there was no actual redemption/penitence arc, which was advertised on the title page. In this book, we never see Moll Flanders repent or be punished for her actions. Her circumstances seemed normal for the time period but she just naturally picked up adultery and thieving due to her situation. I'm not talking about a little bit of prostitution and some bread-stealing, she becomes a long-term mistress and husband to a few people to sustain herself, as well as becoming supposedly the greatest thief ever with no training, and barely a motivation. She does some awful things (mainly the career of thieving) but actually ends up in a very cushy retirement to spend the rest of her life in repentance. I thought Moll was an interesting character but Defoe has no idea how to write women, and yes I will give him a break because the novel was new at this point and he probably didn't consider women to be people equal to men, so his ingrained ignorance made the characterisation pretty dubious. I did like her and I found it fun to watch her life shift between escapades. I can't read past the foundations of this novel and condemn it slightly for that. The foundations being that she was naturally aligned to wickedness and the state really should have raised her properly so that she didn't find herself in such precarious situations, or she should have married better, the silly woman. I also find it laughable that the book began with a lamentation that her upbringing was the root of her wickedness, yet her infinite children (I honestly don't have a count at this point) seemed to never exist unless it formed part of problem for her. They seemed to left to the care of the world all over the place. The complete negligence of her parenting makes the whole book a jaunt and utterly devoid of seriousness. It blows my suspension of disbelief right out of the water.
Regardless, reading this was actually fun but mainly because I was ready to pounce at any point to analyse Defoe's depiction of a woman with loose morals. It wasn't as bad as I expected to be and I'm actually glad I read it.
After reading the laughable preface, I thought I would be reading this book merely to pull it apart for its dated opinions regarding women. Whilst this novel is filled with obvious authorial opinions rather than solely attempting to honestly narrate from a women's perspective, the story was more compelling that I originally expected. It was filled with glaring plot holes (what happened to all her children?) and there was no actual redemption/penitence arc, which was advertised on the title page. In this book, we never see Moll Flanders repent or be punished for her actions. Her circumstances seemed normal for the time period but she just naturally picked up adultery and thieving due to her situation. I'm not talking about a little bit of prostitution and some bread-stealing, she becomes a long-term mistress and husband to a few people to sustain herself, as well as becoming supposedly the greatest thief ever with no training, and barely a motivation. She does some awful things (mainly the career of thieving) but actually ends up in a very cushy retirement to spend the rest of her life in repentance. I thought Moll was an interesting character but Defoe has no idea how to write women, and yes I will give him a break because the novel was new at this point and he probably didn't consider women to be people equal to men, so his ingrained ignorance made the characterisation pretty dubious. I did like her and I found it fun to watch her life shift between escapades. I can't read past the foundations of this novel and condemn it slightly for that. The foundations being that she was naturally aligned to wickedness and the state really should have raised her properly so that she didn't find herself in such precarious situations, or she should have married better, the silly woman. I also find it laughable that the book began with a lamentation that her upbringing was the root of her wickedness, yet her infinite children (I honestly don't have a count at this point) seemed to never exist unless it formed part of problem for her. They seemed to left to the care of the world all over the place. The complete negligence of her parenting makes the whole book a jaunt and utterly devoid of seriousness. It blows my suspension of disbelief right out of the water.
Regardless, reading this was actually fun but mainly because I was ready to pounce at any point to analyse Defoe's depiction of a woman with loose morals. It wasn't as bad as I expected to be and I'm actually glad I read it.
adventurous
funny
lighthearted
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No