Critiquing Charlotte

I didn't really care for Charlotte Temple. I can appreciate the setting in that period of time, because it's always interesting to contrast the past with the present. I felt that the story was overly dramatic, whatever could go wrong, did, and to the most extreme degree. Although I realize one of the purposes of the story was to instruct young women of the dangers of pre-marital sex, I feel that it could have accomplished this by less terrifying means. The lesson here is: if you have sex before marriage, you will not only ruin your life, but those around you, those who put you in that condition, and then you'll die! I also felt the story could stand on its own without the preachy input of the author. If her story wasn't making the point, then Rowlandson's commentary would have been necessary. But because the story was so black and white and the consequences so clear cut, the commentary was too much and redundant. I also felt the characters were not well developed and were one-dimensional. Bad was really bad, good was good and there was little crossover. I think in order to make a successful argument, the characters and the situations have to be relatable to the reader. When both are so "unbelievable" the message is not taken seriously. Would that type of story/lesson work today? Well, teen pregnancy and teenage rebellion are so commonplace that I don't think it would stand a chance, even in an updated form. I think the audience in Rowlandson's day were very different than they are now. Prior to Charlotte Temple, most literature was religious in nature, so readers were probably thrilled to be getting something "new."