|WikiProject Novels||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
Who is the original publisher of Moll Flanders?
Someone should add a themes section. I don't have the skill at using Wikipedia to do it correctly, but it would be great if someone more skilled would. Vancar 08:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
NPOV Whoever is maintaining this article should not comment on the "worthiness" of a particular movie. Please state only what contents/plot of the movie make it similar or dissimilar to the original story. Gohiking 13:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Might be resolved now, since the unnecessary adjectives are gone. Still missing:
- reflections of contemporaries
- secondary literature (and notes in the text with the sources)
- a picture of the cover
I my have read this wrong but Moll does not appear to settle in Carolina. She plans to, but they miss the boat and wind up settling further east in Virginia, across the Bay and near it's mouth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Me again. There may be a clash between the EXPLICIT setting of the novel and the REAL setting. The novel ends in 1683, at which Moll is nearly 70, implying a birthdate of around 1614. From this we can work out that she lived in Colchester until about 1636, took up her career as a thief in about 1662-64, and so on.
The problem here is it's hard to imagine Moll living through the dramatic/unpleasant historical events of this century without even commenting on them. In particular it's hard to imagine her carrying on her liason at Bath, which must have taken place during and shortly after the end of the First Civil War, without being effected enough to comment. It's even more unlikely that she could have lived in London during the plague year and the great fire without it effecting her in some way.
I don't know if I have any conclusions here, except that the setting of the novel is not quite what it claims to be.
Anyone not any thoughts? Or is this way too pedantic to be bothered with?```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Evidently not. I'll edit the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
There are other oddities with the narration. Moll recounts her love affairs and scams in loving detail, then sums up the periods of marriage in a paragraph (we never even learn the names of any of her children). Her "repentance" at the end is so perfunctory that one is inclined to wonder if she is faking it. Defoe, of course, knew perfectly well which parts his readers would be interested in.CharlesTheBold (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Social conditions Should be Mentioned
I am not normally very politically correct, but this story seems very much to also be an indirect commentary on the social conditions for women and the poor underclasses in eighteenth century England. Mention of this aspect of the story is lacking in the article and should be added.
220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Maybe Charles Dickens can portray that more for you. Moll is complicated enough, without adding all these extra points of interest that you require. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Something's wrong here
"still, the reader should not underestimate the twist that her wicked deeds are told in a way to have compassion with her even when she intentionally harms and takes advantage of the kindest people." What? Someone learn some grammar, surely whoever edited this page was a literature student —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)