The aspect of Moll Flanders that interests me the most is the question of whether or not the narration is reliable, and specifically how this relates to her supposedly-repentant attitude at the end.
What makes analysis of this difficult is that we are told up-front that Moll's telling of the story is, at the very least, incomplete—supposedly for the sake of modesty. However, if this is indeed the story of a notorious liar telling her perspective on the tale, how are we to judge its accuracy?
Furthermore, why would Moll choose to relate her story to us? So as to stand as a cautionary tale for others? Perhaps, but in that case it should contain more emphasis on moral consequences. It seems that the only point of the narrative is to make Moll seem more interesting. Since Moll herself is telling the story, it seems that her reason for relating this tale to us is for the sake of her own ego. Why would a truly repentant person still take pride in her past sins? She wouldn't because she isn't.
No comments:
Post a Comment