I didn’t want to post until after I
had read the novel completely, and now that I have, I can’t help but call to
attention just what kinds of “morals” and “virtues” that Susanna Rowson seems
to be advocating. Before I do this though, I want to emphasize that it is not
my intent to try to pull Charlotte and her author forward. These morals and
virtues I’m sure were completely legitimate for this time period and probably
had deep import for Rowson’s audience. I’m simply arguing that as an audience
from the 21st century looking back on this novel, we also cannot
simply jump on the bandwagon that Charlotte Temple is a poor, naïve girl that
should be pitied and simpered upon. These “virtues” that Rowson presents in
this novel I believe can be just as debilitating as any sin conducted by La Rue
or Belcour.
To
focus on Charlotte, my overwhelming criticism of her character is that she has
an absolute lack of responsibility. I felt like I was watching Disney’s The Little Mermaid, a girl waltzing her
way into bad choices because consequences don’t exist, right? Charlotte does
die in the end, but Rowson shows in the novel that suffering is a worse
punishment than death, and maintains that Charlotte should still be pitied: “Oh,
thou benevolent giver of all good! how shall we erring mortals dare to look up
to thy mercy in the great day of retribution, if we now uncharitably refuse to
overlook the errors, or alleviate the miseries, of our fellow-creatures” (Last
sentence of Chapter XVIII, sorry my ebook doesn’t have page numbers).
When
Charlotte finally gets a letter to her parents explaining her situation, do
they reprimand her for her bad choices? Not at all! Just like in The Little Mermaid daddy comes in and
saves her, and she is completely forgiven. Nobody brings it to attention that
if she had thought about what she was doing and had enough gall to make a
decision for herself and not follow
the prodding of others, she might have avoided all this. Rowson instead seems
to be saying that what she lacked was a strong moral character, and she
disregarded her parent’s wishes, and these are the reasons why she is punished.
Last point just so people don’t
jump down my throat: I understand she’s 15, but come on. When someone gives you
a letter saying move to another country with me, arguably a bigger move in 1790
than today, that’s when you need to
be thinking things through a bit.
Although I agree with some of what you mentioned, I don't think looking at Charlotte through the eyes of a strong, educated, 21st century woman is something that should be done. I doubt Rowson expected anyone to do so. We must remember that listening to your parents and seeking advice from elders was looked at as honorable. I think a 15 year old girl's definition of love in the late 1700s would differ much from our definitions. In fact, I think Charlotte's love is more of a flattery. I'd like to end with repeating that I don't think we should criticize Charlotte through our own personal perspectives.
ReplyDelete