...
Show More
In an unequal world connivance is more ambiguous than it is evil. Here Alcott uses the trope of ‘the artful enchantress who ruins a respectable family’ to suggest this idea. As false as the protagonist is, I found myself on her side often. Alcott paints her gentrified ‘victims’ as feckless, childish, naive, entitled, vacuous, unperceptive and listless. I never felt sympathy for them, and was actually somewhat satisfied to see a quick-witted 'commoner' playing them all. It reminded me a little of The Red and the Black with a character of questionable birth but extraordinary talent finding a way to rise in the world. And even in the final moments the reader is given reason to believe that the ‘villainess’ will actually treat her conquest well now that she has conquered him. Alcott never made me hate her, despite her conniving.
This reaction of mine may have to do with the different century I inhabit. Maybe in the time it was written, and among those who would read it, it was a cautionary tale that invited insecurity and dread – which would add a tension to the story that I internalized exactly oppositely. Also it may betray my own class prejudices. To me it was the deprived overcoming the effete with pluck.
Additionally this seemed a study of manipulation, or as it is being called today, social engineering. Flattery, reverse psychology, and other more tantalizing tricks are all part of her repertoire.
This reaction of mine may have to do with the different century I inhabit. Maybe in the time it was written, and among those who would read it, it was a cautionary tale that invited insecurity and dread – which would add a tension to the story that I internalized exactly oppositely. Also it may betray my own class prejudices. To me it was the deprived overcoming the effete with pluck.
Additionally this seemed a study of manipulation, or as it is being called today, social engineering. Flattery, reverse psychology, and other more tantalizing tricks are all part of her repertoire.