The Foolish Virgin: A Romance of Today
 Title page of the first edition. | |
| Authors | Thomas Dixon, Jr. |
|---|---|
| Language | English |
| Publisher | D. Appleton and company[1] |
Publication date | 1915[1] |
| Pages | 352[1] |
The Foolish Virgin: A Romance of Today is a 1915 novel by Thomas Dixon, Jr..
Plot summary
Mary Adams, a schoolteacher in New York City, dreams of finding a husband.[2] She starts a relationship with Jim Anthony, a criminal she meets at the New York Public Library.[2]
Mary and Jim visit North Carolina to meet Anthony's mother.[2] Now a drunk, she tries to murder her son in order to retrieve the valuables from his suitcase that he has stolen.[2] Mary escapes when she finds out about Anthony's criminal activities, and she is rescued by a physician.[2] She is pregnant with Jim's son.[2] Later, he returns his stolen items, builds a family home for his wife and son, and promises to get a job and provide for his family.[2]
Main theme
The novel is a criticism of the emancipation of women.[3]
Critical reception
In a January 1916 review for Bookman, critic P.G. Hulbert, Jr. argued that the ending of the novel was absurd.[2]
Biographer Anthony Slide has suggested that there is 'a vague hint of eugenics' when Mary is worried that her son may inherit Jim's criminal propensions.[2] He added, 'It is not Jim who is the hero here, or even the friendly doctor, but rather the South. The South has a regenerative effect on Jim and helps cure him of the ills—that is, crime—that he developed in New York.'[2]
Cinematic adaptations
The film rights were purchased by the Clara Kimball Young Film Corporation, headed by actress Clara Kimball Young and Lewis J. Selznick.[2] Filming began in August 1916.[2] The film received good reviews in the Motion Picture News, the Exhibitor's Trade Review and the Evening Express.[2]
Another cinematic adaptation was released in 1924.[2] Directed by George W. Hill, it starred Elaine Hammerstein and Robert Frazer.[2] The storyline was strayed from the novel, and the film received bad reviews in Variety and Photoplay.[2]