It is strange, though not crucial, that the factual basis of Emmeline is indicated only in a tiny preface many readers may miss—strange because a myth-come-true (of this sort, anyway) has added punch and at the same time stills impertinent questions about coincidence. This is presumably one purpose of a publicity release to reviewers, which tells how Rossner came upon the story of Emmeline Mosher of Fayette, Maine, how details beyond bare bones were difficult to verify (church records were destroyed in a fire), how the imagination took over and the book was written. Perhaps I am too kind; but the impression persists (and intensifies my reading) that there really was an Emmeline Mosher to whom, in a harsh time and place, these terrible things happened—a son out of wedlock whom she later marries. Because, without that impression, it's all sort of flat. I shall explain.
There are, it is said, only a few great plots (though infinite variations); they deal with lust, ambition, greed, false gods, etc.—that is, excesses and taboos, crime and punishment. (A pessimistic view of what guides our souls, but there it is—why humor, perhaps, is the saving grace.) Among the taboos, none is more powerful than incest (sociobiologists, noting its universality, suggest a genetic proscription); and among possible incests, none is more horrifying than mother-son. I don't know why this is so—obvious sexism is involved (which may suggest another and less pleasant genetic factor)—but it is so. The myth of Phaeton is indistinct, but everybody knows what happened to Oedipus. Even, and especially, Emmeline.
This is a free excerpt of 258 words. There are 1,047 words (approx.
3 pages at 300 words per page) in the full critical essay.
Read the rest of this Criticism with our Rossner, Judith (Perelman) 1935–: Critical Essay by Eliot Fremont-smith Access Pass.
