s from home. However, even when she wasfaltering in her attempts to be unconstrained, she knew that she couldhave returned to her family in England. The fact that she tried to keepher head above water in America illustrated her strength andperseverance. She was scared and proud at the same time, unwilling toreturn home to the safety of her family. However, after hitting rockbottom (pregnant and homeless in the bitter winter of New England), herfather appeared by her side. She turned to him for support andforgiveness, and finally returned to her family after years of beingindependent from them. So, in the end, the reader was presented with the idea that, eventually, Charlotte (or anyone) must return to thesocietal norms in order to be happy. On the other hand, La Rue did not return to the obligations thatshe had in the beginning of the novel. After marrying the affluentsocialite that she met on the ship to America, she denied her past, andeven denied Charlotte in her moment of need. Unlike Charlotte, La Ruedid not return to her roots and societal obligations presented in thebeginning of the novel. And, the reader is presented again with aconsequence. La Rue denied her past, and therefore in the end, diedmiserable and alone. The two women began Charlotte Temple in the same fashion: lookingfor independence and self-worth. However, then endings of the two womenwere different. It seemed as if the narrator is saying if one neverleaves or even returns to social obligations, the end result will behappiness. If one denies obligations, then the end result will bemisery. This novel, however radical it was regarding the risks ofsocial and familial obligations for personal attribution, basicallystated at the end that the one who does adheres to obligations will behappy in the end. So, in conclusion, Charlotte Temple did break downsocial norms by presenting the idea that people could have resistednormal social obligations to pursue p...
