Exonerating Charlotte Doyle:

An Attempted Feminist Refutation of the Deconstruction of The True Confessions of Charlotte Doyle

So what we have here is a girl who admits she owns the weapon that murdered Mr. Hollybrass. A girl who lied about where she got it. A girl who was taught to use a blade, and learned to use it, as Mr. Grimes would have it, ‘uncommon’ well. A girl who, all agree, is unnatural in every way she acts. Gentlemen, do we not, as natural men, need to take heed? Is it not our duty, our obligation, to protect the natural order of the world? (Avi, 178)

And, indeed, as Captain Jaggery’s ostensibly moral imperative from Avi’s The True Confessions of Charlotte Doyle implores, we the readers “protect the natural order of the world” through our disbelief in our heroine as reflected in our intuitive reflection upon and deconstructionalist critique of the book. In fact, it is likely that our disbelief of Charlotte’s story is as much a comment on our attitudes towards gender roles as it is an educated and thoughtful response to its clues. Even as we find ourselves believing along with the story, we, upon reflection, find valid ways to destroy that believability, in no small part because we define what she does as either “female” (believable) and “male” (not believable).

Before I begin, I must establish that what I present here is based largely on what I observed in our class discussions of The True Confessions of Charlotte Doyle and its accompanying deconstructive analysis. The opinions of the book I refer to throughout are those I observed from my classmates, and the presentation of the deconstructionalist critique is taken directly from the class and Dr. Soter’s book, Young adult literature & the new literary theories (1999). In a sense, what I argue here is more of a critique of the deconstructionalist approach to the novel -- a critique intended as a feminist reaction to such an approach. (That and my unwillingness to dismiss Charlotte’s story as nothing more than her fantasy!)

At first, we have no difficulty believing in Charlotte -- unless the title and “Warning” (preface) have already begun to prejudice us against her story (I will discuss these clues in some depth later.). This early willingness to suspend disbelief is because Charlotte is defined early as a rather stereotypical young girl of upper class status: she is refined, deferential, class-oriented, and unmistakably female. Her reaction to her being put on a ship with only men illustrates her attitude vividly.

But . . . but that would be all men, Mr. Grummage! And . . . I am a girl. It would be wrong! I cried, in absolute confidence that I was echoing the beliefs of my beloved parents. (Avi, 15)

At this point and in Charlotte’s subsequent protestations against her situation and the people she is forced to associate with, we have no reason to disbelieve her and accept her story almost by default. We believe because it is believable within our construct of what a 13 year-old girl would be like in her situation; all of our definitions of such a girl are confirmed.

Later, as Charlotte undertakes to recreate herself in order to survive her trip home, we as readers are similarly forced to recreate our definition of her. Before Charlotte does this, we have no problem believing in her but now we must see her in a new way -- a way that belies her traditionally female role. Here, of course, is where we have trouble believing in her. We see her acquisition of traditionally male skills and physical feats as strained; her adaptation to male social situations, improbable. If we didn’t suspect her account initially based on the title and the preface, we do now: the action of the book brings our gender biases into direct conflict with what we read so we become incredulous toward her account and search for a way to reconcile this incongruity. That way is deconstruction.

Deconstructing The True Confessions of Charlotte Doyle effectively allows us an opportunity to dismiss Charlotte‘s story and retain our vision of gender. First, the reader uses the text of the title as an ironic clue: The True Confessions of Charlotte Doyle (italics added for emphasis) is seemingly redundant in that Confessions implies true so that the True in the title must be viewed with skepticism even to the point of assuming that it is not true at all. Second, the reader considers the inconsistency of Charlotte’s journal itself. We are told in the preface that what we are reading is, in fact, an authentic journal:

Keeping that journal then is what enables me to relate now in perfect detail everything that transpired during that fateful voyage across the Atlantic in the summer of 1832. (Avi, 3)

However, we discover at the end that the journal is actually nothing more than a re-creation of Charlotte’s journal. After we learn that Charlotte’s original journal was burned by her father, we see Charlotte aggressively recreating it in order to preserve her experiences:

...I used the books, the blank pages, the margins, even the mostly empty title pages, to set down secretly what had happened during the voyage. It was my way of fixing all the details in my mind forever. (Avi, 223)

This leads the reader to suspect that Charlotte’s account, whether deliberately or unconsciously, is flawed and exaggerated. Third, the reader is asked to believe the improbable as Charlotte performs amazing feats of physical prowess as well as social and emotional adaptation. We are suspicious of her alleged accomplishments because she is an upper class female; we simply do not believe that such a person (a girl) could do such things.

Taken together, these elements create a picture of Charlotte as either a liar or simply unreliable due to the human flaws of her own perception, and this picture is certainly valid based on the facts under consideration in a deconstructionalist approach. Nevertheless, this criticism is in itself suspect because it implies a willingness to disbelieve in the reader based upon his/her gender biases.

For instance, it is possible that the apparent redundancy in the title serves as a way for Charlotte to reinforce the truth in the face of the fact that no one -- particularly we as the readers -- will believe her because of the incredible nature of her deeds and the fact that she is a girl. Indeed, we along with her father are quick to dismiss her tales as beyond belief and quite “unnatural” (Avi, 222) which lends credence to a need for Charlotte to redundantly emphasize the truth in it. Perhaps even Avi himself was toying with us, wanting us to tinker with the idea of the title as either or both an indication of untruth or/and a railing against what could be believed from just a girl.

Further, as deconstructionalists and as human beings, we logically assume that the revision of Charlotte’s journal has led to exaggeration and unreliability -- surely such revision would lead to errors. That is certainly possible, but if Charlotte’s story is true, it is equally possible that such astounding events could, and probably would, remain vivid in her mind. Besides, her re-creation of her journal came soon after the trip before much could be forgotten. Overall, I find sufficient evidence here to at least put some faith in her story, enough at least to consider the idea that it is flawed because it is a re-creation arguable at best.

Finally, would we be as skeptical of Charlotte’s account, let alone her actions, if she were a male? Virtually to a person, the reactions to Charlotte’s actions in our class were couched in terms of a disbelief in Charlotte’s ability to physically. mentally, or emotionally adapt to a male role on the ship, almost as if such strength of mind and body were exclusive to males. This in itself indicates a gender expectation on the part of the reader, one that predisposes the reader to disbelieve and should lead us all to re-examine our motivations in deconstructing the text. Moreover, females and males alike colored Charlotte’s adaptation to her circumstances with a movement from a female role to a male role as if gender roles were intractable and binding from both the male and female points of view -- she wouldn’t be able to do it, despite the fact that quite possibly her own survival dictated she probably could have not done otherwise! Once again, logic dictates that we at least acknowledge that our inability to accept Charlotte’s account could be more of a reflection of our gender expectations than her twisting of the truth.