The Classics discussion

The name itself has conotations but who is she beyond the name?

She seems to already be at a disadvantage because of her name.

Or how about she seems to be at a disadvantage because of her sex?

I haven't finished the book yet. (Only 1/3 of the way through.)

I *completely* agree she is at a disadvantage because of her sex. Sorry a little late here - I just finished. I was always curious what her real name was, but I guess we never know. My take - She was an ambitious woman who was always trying to be self supporting and to get ahead and was severely limited in the ways in which she could do so.

And wow! What a life she had! Reading the book, I found it a little slow, but when I think over what happened it was a lot.

I admired her for her persistence and really felt she was extremely limited in her opportunities. If just one of the early situations would have worked out (say she married the first brother or even if the other brother had lived) her life would have been completely different.

I think it poses a fabulous argument for autonomy for women by example.

Not as good as Robinson Crusoe.

I'm surprised more women haven't made comments.

My review:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

Although I enjoyed it, I stopped reading about 3/4 of the way through. I could see how the story was going to continue in a similar manner, and there were other things I wanted to get on to reading.

I was quite surprised about how forward-thinking the book was with its argument for women's automomy. It is very telling at the beginning of the book when Moll "mistakenly" thinks a gentlewoman is someone who can make their own honest living. It made me wonder what the reaction to the book was in its day, beyond the shock at the scandalous things Moll does.

As a woman, what bothered me about the book was that you could tell it had been written by a man of the time. Particularly nagging was Moll's attitude toward the children that she DID take care of. They seemed to play no part in the story, although any mother will tell you that any child of any historical period, wanted or not, can virtually consume a mother's daily attention. They were starving too...weren't they banging on her bedroom door or stealing from the neighbors, or otherwise running amok? But no mention of children as characters in themselves, which did not ring true to me. (contrast with the children in Pearl Buck's "The Good Earth.") But that's the danger of reading period fiction, I guess.

All in all, it was an interesting read, and prompted me to think many times that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

I agree on the involvement of the children in the story. Not really that it didn't ring true, but I was surprised by it. To me, she always seemed concerned about them, ie made sure they were cared for, but were they necessary to her life? No, they were not. She didn't give a lot of detail anyway - like when she summarized one of her marriages - 'we lived well and things were fine and then he died'. Then you realize 5 years had passed.

I saw her as uber-practical. If she couldn't take care of and stabilize herself, she certainly couldn't do it for a child. I don't know how far 3/4 was but she did reconnect with one of her children successfully later. That episode made me think maybe she had buried some pain, she did seem emotionally affected by the reunion. Ultimately the story was hers though, they didn't figure large in her life.