Repentant or Irrelevant?

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.

Moll Flanders And The Terrible Tale of Why Money Isn't Everything And First World Problems Aren't Funny

So we discussed in class last time (at time of writing this) about whether or not Ms. Flanders got a bad break during the whole Colchester incident, where we wagered that 605 guineas for your dignity and self respect was a pretty good shake. Upon further reflection, I'm not really sure how much I really agree with that though, her $3 million in modern day money notwithstanding.

Moll came from a history of money, in a way. Her whole childhood, she did work and, pleased the gentry, and was financially rewarded. Though she did not come from money herself, she was a regular entrepenuer, and quite a lucrative one at that. While the value of the money the Elder Brother awarded her for sexual loyalty was by no means a small amount, it was just another point in a long pattern. Coupled with the fact that she also has a history of rewarding her gains to others, thus we can plainly see money is not a primary motivator for her.

Then we have the period ideal of a woman, specifically one of her greatest attributes: chastity. Moll fancied herself a virtuous woman. She wants to be a good person, and lead a good life, and not get into any trouble or cause any mischief. She has a very strong moral compass, and her doing the lateral fandango with the Elder Brother was motivated not by lust but by a consummation of virtuous love under the assumption of a marriage contract. So, when the tremendous berk decides he wants nothing more to do with her, she falls into a terrible sadness. Her financial remuneration never even enters her head. All she cares about is that this means she is no longer a good woman. It does worse than damage her reputation: it damages her self-respect, and her idea of who she is as a person. If she cannot marry Sir Berksalot, then she is a loose woman of low morals, even though her whole life she had considered herself to be of strong moral fibre and unshakeable purity. But she isn't. This is the first time in her life something bad has happened in which she was complicit.

And really, is any amount of money worth your own dignity?