LITR 5535: American Romanticism

Student Presentation on Reading Selections, summer 2002

Presenter:  Kayla Logan
Recorder:  Krisann Muskievicz
June 6, 2002

Topic:  Charlotte: A Tale of Truth, Susanna Rowson

            Norton Anthology pg. 370-407

Susanna Rowson wrote this selection in 1791 prior to moving to the United States in 1793, but it became the first best seller in America in its third edition, Charlotte Temple.

In America, the novel was widely read and accepted by many as non-fiction.  It is clear that Rowson’s novel captured her audience’s desire for “stories dramatizing the clash of impulse with authority” (Norton 371). 

The conflict of emotional impulse and moral reasoning is a common theme of Romanticism.  However, the main character, Charlotte, is clearly brought to destruction by allowing her emotion to prevail her ‘good sense’ by indulging herself with the unauthorized meetings with Montraville. The outcome of Charlotte in Rowson’s narrative reveals a moralizing, anti-Romantic theme.

Despite the anti-Romantic message in Rowson’s work, the selection reveals many literary elements of Romanticism.  Charlotte: A Tale of Truth is laden with idealism.  Not only the main character, but also the narrator reveals a strong opinion of “the way things should be.”  The theme of rebellion is certainly present as is the idea that Charlotte is an individual who is separate from the masses in that she is highly regarded by her parents, teachers, and peers.  The plot of Rowson’s narrative also reveals an element common in Romantic literature – that of desire, loss and hope.  Charlotte desires the love of Montraville, looses his love in addition to her family, worldly possessions and her reputation, yet the novel maintains hope for the future of Charlotte, her new daughter, and the reader who will certainly take the story to heart and not make the same mistakes of poor Charlotte.

The second reading, from page 386, the fourth and fifth full paragraphs reveals Charlotte’s resolve to do the right thing by both Montraville and her parents, enabling her to “rejoice…in this triumph of reason over inclination.”  The reader is led to believe that if Charlotte had been more enlightened and had not allowed her emotions to interfere, she would have been just fine.

Discussion Question:  Is Charlotte a Romantic heroine?  That is, does Charlotte “appear empty or innocent of all but potential or desire… and [have] a willingness to self-invent or transform” (syllabus, objective 1b)?

Summary of Student Discussion:  The narrator would agree that Charlotte is weak and swept along by the influences of others, but Charlotte’s true weakness seems to be naïveté.  The narrator expresses the idea of the “guilty pleasure”—not only the one Charlotte gives in to, but the one on the part of the author and the reader.  Charlotte’s child-like trust in Mademoiselle La Rue and her idealism proves that Charlotte has little ability to trick others as her deceiving of the headmistress is motivated by her loyalty to her teacher, La Rue.  Also, it is unclear in the reading whether Charlotte willingly gets into the coach or is forced, either way, it is obvious that she is mislead by La Rue, Montraville and Belcour.

Selection reader clarifies earlier comparison with Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, a later Romantic novel.  Both novels contain Romantic or non-Romantic characters in opposition, for example, Charlotte and La Rue and Dr. Frankenstein and Henry Clerval.  However, in the case of Frankenstein, it is the Romantic character that is to be admired for actions of conscience in contrast to the actions of Dr. Frankenstein, who is motivated by scientific reasoning. In this regard, the two novels reveal the exact opposite theme and causes one to wonder if Mary Shelley was familiar with Rowson’s novel.  (It is highly likely that Shelley would have read Charlotte: A Tale of Truth.)

Student Discussion:  It is true that Charlotte makes a mistake – as all humans do – but, can it be stated that the author’s choice of subject matter is Romantic?  The reader has the guilty pleasure of reading the story, but the point is the warning.  Is the moral message, or warning lost?  It is certainly true that Rowson’s audience was more interested in fiction that sermons and moralizing rhetoric.  Rowson inserts morality into a story that breaks those rules.

Second Discussion Question:  Did Rowson deliberately write this in opposition to the growing mood of what we now refer to as Romanticism?

Student Response:  The voice of the narrator is not necessarily the voice of Rowson.  It is possible that Rowson, with her strong background in acting, created the moralizing narrator deliberately to be irritating and could actually reveal a reaction against Reason.

Concluding thoughts:  Charlotte is indeed a frustrating character due to her blankness.  But it is this emptiness that is Romantic.  Charlotte remains passive and accomplishes little transformation.  She is likened to the archetype of the ‘orphan in the storm.’ 

The reading selection also evinces a soap-opera style and also the “Garden of Eden” effect, as the story begins in the beautiful perfection of nature that is destroyed by the serpent and tempter, Mademoiselle La Rue.